The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
The advancement of reproductive technologies has not only made an impact on how life emerge; technologies also remake death and dying at the beginning of life. In fertility clinics surplus embryos raise questions regarding if, when, and how they can be discarded or used for non-reproductive means. Ultrasonography used for prenatal diagnosis situate expecting parents in situations of whether they should terminate the pregnancy when fetal malformations are detected, and infants some time die even though technologies are used to keep them alive. Moreover, new technologies are developed in regards to handling dead bodies. This includes post-mortem diagnostics or the development of cooling technologies, such as the cooling cot, a technology that may enable new bereavement practices.
  In this panel, we welcome presentations that explore in which ways technologies are part of death and dying at the beginning of life around the globe, by asking: How are technologies of death and dying regulated, practiced and lived with? How do technologies impact when a life is deemed killable and grievable? How do processes and conceptualizations of death and dying alter as technologies are increasingly involved in reproduction? How do parents or the medical staff involved, live with the deaths that emerge with technologies? And what are the theoretical implications of rethinking technologies of life to also focus on technologies of death? Finally, we welcome reflections on the politics of ontology, and conceptualizations of technologies of dying, as death at the beginning of life is explored.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
Policing has always relied on technologies to assist in the spatial management and social control of populations. Recently, digital technologies have become increasingly central to police operations, which parallels a shift to more proactive forms of policing. Predictive policing, online surveillance, biometrics, facial recognition, machine learning, body cameras, gunshot detection, interoperable databases, and drones connect to existing police technologies as many departments attempt to shift to ‘intelligence-led’ or ‘data-driven’ approaches. With the current public crisis facing policing, there has been a growing questioning of the effects of technologies, computation, and data on practices of policing. How can STS approaches contribute to studying policing in its situated contexts, considering the uneven and often fraught implementation of technology? Given how little we know about what technologies of policing, or even policing as a technology itself can do, we invite perspectives and approaches that study the material impacts of policing. In this panel, we seek to include a diverse set of concerns and methods in order to reveal new depths and breadth to our understanding of how technologies of policing and policing as technology function and transform each other. These might include theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions that, for example, historicize policing technologies (Jefferson, 2020); engage ethnographically with police officers, departments, or technology developers (Brayne, 2017); experiment with policing algorithms (Lum & Isaac, 2016); and more. Further, given the disproportionate use of violence against marginalized members of our communities, we encourage approaches that consider how to center resistive and abolitionist approaches in studying policing.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
This panel will seek to understand what it means to practice good relations between technologies and humans who adhere to the Islamic way of life. Islam is one of the world’s dominant (23% of the world identify as Muslim) and fastest-growing major religion. While there is much scholarship that focuses on Islam’s spiritual and cultural aspects, there is a paucity of research that considers the relationship between Islam and modern computing technologies. We call for research that focuses on understanding the designs, (non)uses, improvisations, and regulations around the “techno-spiritual” practices of Muslim populations globally. 
We construe technology broadly and welcome scholarship that offers a more nuanced understanding of Islam and technology design from various scholarly traditions, including sociology, law, anthropology, communication, STS, environmental science, political science, social work, gender studies, health and philosophy. We define “Islam” as an umbrella term for representing different practices of Islam around the world. We hope to contribute to discussions of how technologies shape and are, in turn, shaped by the religious practices within Muslim communities. These practices have implications for development, privacy, security, human rights, social justice, health, substance abuse rehabilitation, sustainability, and islamophobia, while also addressing the broader question around the othering of the Islamic faith from modern Science and Technology practices.
In bringing this panel together, we hope to draw attention to Muslim communities’ values and needs, in order to initiate a larger conversation about the technology needs of faith-based communities, which have been largely overlooked by the research community.
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
People are increasingly tasked with both the aesthetic and scientific management and optimization of their bodies. For women and non-binary people, in particular, “health” and “beauty” are not simply individual achievements, but comprise the terrain in which battles over the “fitness of the race and the nation” have been played out (Strings 2019:194). Technologies from X-ray machines to Fitbits are mobilized in these fights. STS has analyzed how gender and racial ideologies are embedded within such technologies. This panel draws attention to technologies of the body with a particular eye toward aesthetics. How does the body become articulated, legible, and fortified through the use of technology? We are especially interested in everyday, mundane objects that have often not been analyzed as technologies, such as cosmetics, clothing, and accessories. Technologies of embodiment like cosmetics have been dismissed as commodities or frivolities. But subjects use them to resist subordination and to express themselves in ways that can subvert oppression at personal and structural scales.
We invite submissions of papers about technologies of embodiment, enhancement and adornment, especially on the following subjects: 
-The disruption of the binary between natural and artificial
-The enforcement of the gender binary, heteronormativity, and transmisogyny
-The construction or disruption of racial and colonial formations
-The political economy of makeup
-Fashion
-Beauty gurus and social media influencers
-Cosmetic surgery
-DIY body and “bio” hacking
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Throughout history, the future has been an important reference for mankind. Its role for life in the present, however, has changed significantly in the course of time. While the future was initially found to be unalterable, with the development of modern societies it became to be understood as an open horizon that stands in a causal relationship to the present – the future got shapable according to actions and decisions in the present.
This shift in terms of interpreting the future made it even more attractive than before to produce knowledge about it. Predictive strategies subsequently flourished and technologies thereby played an increasingly important role.
With the advent of modern forms of algorithmic data analysis, with machine learning and artificial intelligence gaining center stage, another shift in referring to the future is likely, presenting an exciting as well as urgent challenge for social sciences in general and STS in particular.
Before this backdrop, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical as well as empirical implications of algorithmic prediction in the datafied society. What effects does the algorithmization of prediction have on the systems, settings and situations concerned? How do algorithmic predictive technologies differ from their – allegedly less sophisticated – technological predecessors? And, last but not least, where are the analytical possibilities and limits of STS approaches regarding the algorithmic turn of prediction?
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
Biomedicalization scholars have argued that studies of biomedicalization need to be situated in their geopolitical context and within that context’s history of approaches to health and healing (Clarke et al 2010). Biomedicalization can be absent in some sites, or it can be contested by a diverse set of other approaches to healing (such as non-Western practices of medicine). Yet such contestations within the field of medicine itself have often been overlooked in the literature on biomedicalization. One such field is social medicine, a a field concerned with the social determinants of health and the relations of medicine and social justice. 
In this panel, we trace the blurred and contested boundaries between social medicine and biomedicine. Some practices of social medicine have included at the same time social forms of care and biomedicalized approaches. Other social medicine practices have explicitly challenged biomedicalization processes. At different times and places, proponents of social medicine have argued that it has been too much  biomedicine (at the expense of social, political and legal approaches), or that it has been too little of it (HIV treatment in low income countries, access to gender-affirming therapy). Sometimes, biomedicalization processes initially promoted by social medicine in the name of solidarity or health equity, have been transformed into more techno-science-dependent forms of practice, sometimes in stratified forms. 
In this open panel, we aim to explore diverse empirical examples of interdependencies, interconnectedness and contestations between biomedicine and social medicine in different historical and contemporary sites.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
The Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled in modern history on both the political and scientific fronts. The only comparable event, the Spanish flu, did not entail the measures of exception such as lockdowns and curfews that we have been witnessing since March 2020. Nor was it accompanied by a similar foregrounding of scientific debate and scrutiny of every scientific or medical pronouncement. The origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, screening tests, medicines and treatments, fatality rates, masks, vaccines, all have turned into issues hotly debated in the public sphere, both at the national and international levels. 
On the surface the pandemic seems to conform to the controversial dynamics of knowledge production and use emphasized by STS in the last four decades or so. From this observation, the premise of the panel is that the outbreak and management of Covid-19 provides us with a unique opportunity to test our widely held conclusions on various dimensions of the science/politics interface. Given that normative and public policy concerns clearly pervade a number of STS works, one may also interrogate the extent to which various Covid actors behave according to the lessons taught by the field.
The problem of whether Covid-19 vindicates and/or challenges STS knowledge and principles can be addressed by investigating at least three thematic clusters. 1. Risk societies and scientific uncertainty. 2. Controversies and scientific consensus formation. 3. Public engagement in science and conspiracy hunting.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
An imposter is commonly understood as a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others. The imposter and practices of impostering, are perhaps as common as making and sustaining distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Despite their omnipresence, the imposter has largely been exploited analytically as a phenomenon that reveals something about an underlying order. This panel – which is a freestanding upshot of the new volume The Imposter as Social Theory edited by the panel conveners –  seeks to expand the discussion on the imposter by understanding imposters as primary engines of indeterminacy, uncertainty and disorder . Instead of exploiting the imposter as a methodological probe for the revelation of social order, this panel suggests the imposter can more fundamentally re-specify social theory and the entire project of theorising. The figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions and questions they engender, enrich long standing STS conversations about relations between appearance and reality and between identity and social order.
The panel invites contributions that explore what the imposter does to our efforts in theorising social order; how we might attend to impostering as a performance; how imposters enact belonging; how accounts of who is and is not an imposter get settled or not; and how to detail the materialities or socio-material conditions through which imposters are brought into being, and emerge as something to be known and detected, e.g. gates, tests, scans, internet, norms and manners.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
Debates on ‘post truth’ have become a visible staple of recent STS, the word having gathered media and journalistic attraction — though mostly in the Angloshpere — to include discussions and commentaries in some of the main journals in the field such as Social Studies of Science and Engaging Science, Technology and Society. However, most papers and books published on the subject of ‘post truth’ (within and outside STS) are presented in the form of essays or reflections that are based on little or no firsthand systematic, empirical research, and with limited geographic diversity. In this panel, we propose to bring together STS scholars interested in debating what it means to live in a post-truth age — if we are indeed living in such a new age at all — based on empirical studies. Thus, while ‘post truth’ is most commonly associated with the idea that contemporary societies have entered a period in which facts matter less to public opinion than emotions and personal beliefs, there remains much to be worked out in terms of what, in this respect, distinguishes the current age from others. In this panel we seek to bring together papers based on research that seeks to either rectify or destabilize a taken for-granted, definitive and universalist definition of ‘the post-truth age’, based on evidence of changes to contemporary societies, in a wider variety of contexts, which would justify adopting such an all-embracing concept.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
The benefits and costs of election technologies (voting machines, biometric voter registration and authentication, electronic transmission of results) are now much debated. Despite the criticisms, high-tech voting systems are booming in many parts of the world: for example, half of the countries in Africa have adopted biometrics for voter registration procedures. This panel aims to investigate the transnational circulation of these technologies and the invention of new markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Particular attention should be paid to the neoliberal and postcolonial logics underlying the spread of these technologies. Who plays a major role in the roll-out of election technologies in the Global South? To what extent are countries in Africa and elsewhere used as a testing ground by the private companies providing the technologies? We aim to explore the strategies of old and new actors in this field: election commissions, ICT and biometric experts, private firms. A second key objective of this panel is to make sense of the practical effects of election technologies in the countries concerned. In many countries, the technologies have raised high expectations. How do governments, political opponents as well as activists strategically use them? How does the collection of data transform electoral politics and the architecture of the state? As lawyers and privacy advocates face major challenges, perspectives from the Global South and battles fought there are also crucial for the rest of the world. Ultimately, this panel explores how election technologies have shaped our contemporary practices and politics of democracy.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
Healthcare professionals are making increasing use of decision-making support systems. Those tools thrive on the accumulation of socio-demographic and medical data. Ever more detailed databases allow the actors to refine and accelerate diagnoses. Computer-assisted analysis of a large number of clinical studies offer the possibility of optimizing the use of health resources (drugs, organs, vaccines, tests, hospitalizations) by anticipating reactions to treatments and personalizing care. The creation of large national databases dedicated to Covid-19 demonstrate that, more than ever, big data are thought to be the future of healthcare, especially when uncertainty dominates debates. 
The use of big data and predictive tools in health raises many questions at the articulation of socio-technical, legal and ethical levels. Among them: What are the impacts of predictive devices on patients’ care trajectories? What do they imply in terms of equal access to treatments, informed choice and protection of personal data? To what extent should predictive tools (using algorithms, genomic sequencing etc.) and those who design them be allowed to control/impact medical decisions?
This panel seeks to create a dialogue among researchers interested in the use of big data to manage health, in the construction of data processing tools for AI purposes, as well as in the regulation of data access. Whether the papers are based on quantitative or qualitative research, they will be invited to shed light on the impacts of big data on health practices, individual futures, especially for minority groups, and collective imaginary.
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
The global economy is experiencing increased digital transformation with its impacts felt globally and in all economic sector. Digitalization enhances productivity with increased impacts on e-governance, telemedicine, distant learning, market access, remote-working, manufacturing et.c
 Digital technological capabilities, however, remain concentrated in technological advanced economies and the digital economy is creating emerging new forms of inequality and wider technological gaps. The rise in digitization has reshaped markets and the world of business and work raising inequalities within economies and distorting income distribution. The distribution of both capital and labor income has become more unequal with income largely shifting from labor to capital. 
Developing countries (especially those in African) will not easily finance digitalization due to the high cost of infrastructure to develop and support robots, automation and other digital technologies. Moreover, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for digitalization. New forms of nationalisms are growing, border closures and restrictions of movements of humans and goods are all in a bid to stop the spread of the virus. Digitalization is sure to increase if business transactions are to continue. This has made countries to develop national digital polices. However, policy failures of past industrial policies may still hunt this countries.
This panel will contribute to knowledge on how to structure digitalization that will enhance the attainment of sustainable development reducing inequality and technological divide. We are also seeking to understand the likely factors causing the digital divide and national policies to regulate the impacts digitalization in developing countries
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
There is a risk that when the story of this current pandemic is written, the images and ideas from places in Euro-America will overwhelm the archive. As the proliferation of scholarship on COVID-19 indicates, we as a discipline are in midst of canon-making. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that this canon reflects the diversely situated voices of the STS community. 
This panel hopes to offer a precursory corrective to that potentially limited theorizing of COVID-19 through the Euro-American lens, by offering new methodological, practical, and theoretical spaces from which we can see and think about this pandemic. Kuan-Hsing Chen in Asia as Method mobilized an intellectual trajectory that encouraged theoretical moorings that were focused on the diversity of Asian histories and presents as a way to explain Asia. Thinking about Asia in comparison with other places in Asia, and moving beyond comparison with the ‘global north,’ allows for a nuanced way to think about COVID-19. 
In the spirit of this years’ 4S theme ‘Practices and Methods in Unequal and Uncertain Worlds’ this open panel invites papers and talks that encourage new and novel theoretical moorings that emerge from spaces that have known inequality and uncertainty through long histories. Papers from feminist, Indigenous, and/or post-colonial scholars, that draw on the details of how COVID-19 shaped policy, practice, and the everyday in Asia-Pacific, that push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ STS, and make space for complicated narratives that reflect the diversity of the Asian-Pacific COVID-19 experience are welcomed.
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Erving Goffman (1961) called both prisons and psychiatric wards “total institutions,” gesturing to the intertwined nature of care, capture, and control in efforts to manage deviance of the soul, psyche, or self. This panel investigates institutions and techniques of mental health care in the Global North, South, and colonial contexts, grappling with the criminological, forensic, pastoral and penal impulses of the psy-disciplines. Building from the work of feminist science and technology studies, abolitionist scholarship (Wang 2018), studies of racial capitalism (Robinson 1983), and historical and sociological studies of psychiatry, social services, and the prison industrial complex (Roberts 2001, Metzl 2010, Ryan Hatch 2019, Raz 2020, Smtih 2020), panelists will explore the connective tissue between the prison and the asylum, probing the practices, histories, expertise and apparatuses within the mental health care professions and other social services (from psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond) that knit together the carceral with the bioemdical. 
We invite papers that approach topics such as:
The role of digital, computational, and pharmaceutical technologies (e.g. electronic monitoring, predictive AI, listening tools, psychotropic drugs) in extending, fortifying, or disrupting the carceral dimensions of the psy-disciplines, particularly as they impact racialized and marginalized communities 
The intersection of state, corporate, and colonial surveillance networks and mental health care, from institutionalization to self-help and mindfulness movements 
Anti-carceral technologies that point to abolitionist futures for psychiatry beyond bureaucratic or colonial institutions
Accounts of activist, patient rights’, or disability justice movements, subsumed histories of radical care, and initiatives to decolonize biomedical care practices
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
Neoliberal health reforms have flown under many banners: structured pluralism; new public management; value-based care. These reforms often involve re-using patient data in resource allocation, population-level analytics, and healthcare and public health administration. Such activities make assumptions about the nature, accuracy, and utility of such data, and often wrongly assume patients’ access to payment. In addition to producing benefits, these reforms have led to harms: algorithmically-crystallized neglect; structural exploitation veiled by market logics; clinician demoralization. Informed consent – which could have been preserved or extended through models for accountable, privacy-preserving multi-party sharing of data that integrate bioethical principles – has arguably been eroded through the integration of data infrastructures. Technology companies have taken the COVID-19 pandemic as an occasion for expansion with minimal oversight, often encouraged by new regulations designed to facilitate the release of medical records from the health system to mobile and Web services chosen by ostensibly well-informed health consumers. New forms of profiteering and malfeasance may emerge, for which governments and professions are unprepared. 
This open panel aims to deepen conversations between health informatics and STS, to clarify how critical inquiry can enrich health informatics practice and policy. We aim to deepen conversations about data justice in interoperable health systems and to make inroads that lead to material benefits for those neglected and exploited under neoliberalized health regimes. In addition to critical qualitative and humanistic inquiry, we welcome submissions that use quantitative and computational methods in a critical fashion, and speculative submissions that envision transformative futures.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
STS is approaching something of a relational turn. This is, in large part, a result of the recent rise of new materialisms and their attempts to extend accounts of social relations to nonhuman agents and material forces, to frequently generative ends. However, this work lands with a particular valence in settler colonial contexts, where Indigenous scholars have offered astute critiques of the ways that such projects come close to re-enacting non-Western ontologies of interconnection, though judiciously scrubbed of any metaphysical claims or acknowledgements of colonial legacies (Tallbear 2015, Todd 2016). Accordingly, while in both protests and paywalled papers alike, there is a call to acknowledge the material relations between human and nonhuman worlds, there is not a shared agreement of what this might mean in its particulars. If relations provide, to some degree, both a theory of everything and a site of continued incommensurate social claims, then the call for simply more relationality is likely to quickly find its limits. How then, do we proceed?
This panel finds its answer through projects of categorization. It highlights papers that develop analytic vocabularies capable of distinguishing between different relational forms and effects to better assess how contrasting relational frameworks work to admit certain forms of connection while insulating themselves from others. Grounded in both new research and scholarly engagements with the growing literature on relational methods and imperatives, the panel seeks to intervene in this quickly developing theoretical turn to seed further and more fruitful relational analytics.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
Over the past two hundred years of industrialization, societies and scientists have struggled to keep track of the safety profiles of chemicals, both the long-used ones and the constant stream of new chemicals, used in agriculture and homes and in cosmetics, supplements, and pharmaceuticals. More often than not, when chemicals appear on the market, their risk profiles are poorly understood and are used for many years before evidence of harm
emerges. Knowledge of toxicities is generated by researchers working in a range of disciplines, each of which producing field-specific knowledge with their own measurement techniques, resulting in their own “agential cut” (Barad 2007). Measurements of chemical toxicities furthermore change over time. In the early twentieth century, animal studies were used to define threshold levels below which substances were deemed safe, while nowadays, it is recognized that some chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems and cause cancers even at very low levels of exposure. Overall there is very little knowledge on the effects of the multitude of chemicals that make up our every-day lives (Murphy 2008). Thus, what we know about entangled toxicities of chemicals is partial and in flux.  How can we make poorly understood slow toxicities visible, and what are the challenges in doing so? We seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront these challenges, including how they seek to make the entangled toxicities visible and intervene to prevent toxicities. We invite both theoretical and methodological papers on these critical questions.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
How do you cultivate good practices, relationships, and things in an environment of toxicants, toxic politics, and toxic relationalities? How do toxic production systems–based on extractivism, colonialism, and plantation capitalism–foment new forms of sustainability that cannot be excised from their deadly foundations? This open call examines urgent tensions between toxic legacies and hopeful futures when it comes to so-called renewable energies, green/blue/bio-economies, waste management systems, and sustainable agriculture/aquaculture. Such hopeful alternatives to unsustainable production systems hold within them the possibility of working towards a “Greater Good,” however, “goodness” is largely built on toxic colonial and capitalist foundations that are rendered invisible through sustainability discourse. In other words, in making sustainable things or practices, toxicities in many forms are in fact often sustained. This panel will therefore investigate the ways scientists, investors, and producers in the agricultural, aquacultural, and waste sectors build on toxic legacies as they seek to render generative material processes–such as photosynthesis, bioremediation, and fermentation–into sustainable tools. We encourage papers that empirically illuminate how social systems and material processes together shore up, generate, and maintain toxicity. Such investigations will open space to question whether and how good relations could be cultivated out of toxic relationships without assuming that toxicity can be entirely expunged. The overall aim of this open panel is thus to critically address how sustainable processes depend on toxic production systems, as a first step towards activating better ways of living amid toxicity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Major changes are underway within the pharmaceutical sector that are associated with shifts in research, innovation and business models from blockbuster products intended for large patient populations to more niche products designed for smaller, more targeted populations. Innovation is underway in  how drugs are being researched and developed, and how they are being manufactured, used, evaluated, licensed and paid for. While some of these changes are tied to genomics and the rise of personalized medicine, others result of patient activism and disease politics. These technical and political developments put pressure on public regulators and payers, resulting in novel forms of governance, including the use of real world data and conditional reimbursement.
This panel builds on STS scholarship on the socio-technical production of pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as its material and biopolitical impacts.  We invite papers from a range of international perspectives that critically analyze these transformations, as well as those that highlight forms of alternative pharmaceutical practices and methods that are more sustainable and offer more just and equitable access to treatments. Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Forms of open pharmaceutical innovation
– Industry dynamics and changing business models
– Patient groups and new forms of knowledge production
– R&D partnerships across public, not-for-profit and/or private sector
– Drug repurposing and off-label use 
– Changing regulatory knowledge and forms of evaluation
– Pharmaceutical pricing and access
– Novel access arrangement and alternative regulatory frameworks for coverage
– Future health care system sustainability and social solidarity.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
Digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and the myriad applications of AI have the potential to transform our societies. This panel examines the transformation by focusing on the concept and idea of transparency. Algorithmic governance of societies, and the governance of algorithmic decision making itself, pose new kinds of challenges to (e.g.) legitimacy of governance, accountability and protection of rights. These challenges have lately been the subject of European Union policy and regulation, with the General Data Protection Regulation emphasizing transparency as the central principle and criterion in the processing of personal data. Indeed, in policy and politics, transparency is often seen as a panacea to the woes of democratic governance. However, at present it is unclear what transparency does and can achieve in the context of algorithmic governance, or what transparency exactly refers to. Thus, what are we talking about when we talk about transparency in algorithmic governance? 
Though the organizers of this panel work at the interface of sociolegal and STS scholarship and critical algorithm studies, we welcome all contributions that straddle any institutional, professional and disciplinary boundaries and discuss the social, legal and technological practice of transparency. 
Thus, presentations can discuss transparency and algorithmic governance (e.g.) in the following contexts:
·      legal regulation of algorithmic governance,
·      policy,
·      new forms of expertise or expert advisory groups,
·      technological and social aspects of AI,
·      effects of transparency for epistemic subjects,
·      technological competence and its distribution in society. 
We welcome theoretical, legal and empirical analyses and case studies.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.