In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
STS has a strong legacy of studying and contributing to discussions on the relationship between science, law/court and governance. To further extend this legacy this open panel welcome contributions that explore the intersection of multiple forms of citizen science, law and environmental governance.
In some countries, the use of data from citizen observations in national environmental law and governance is an established practice. To implement official government environmental policies through different laws at hand is recognised to require observations beyond what public authorities and science can produce on their own. Thus, in some contexts “good relations” exist between citizens, legal frameworks and environmental governance, in others this is not the case. These different relations, good or bad, their contexts and practices are seldom studied and compared in terms of national and international legal frameworks.
Citizen science should here be considered in its broadest sense, including initiatives from science or public authorities as well as from indigenous groups, marginalized or community-based civic mobilization and environmental activism.
Thus, we would like to explore the wider landscape of where environmental citizen science meets legal frameworks and welcome original contributions on environmental justice work (citizen science for compliance), citizen science data leveraged to challenge industry reported data,  citizen observations to motivate or force public authorities studies, nuisance reports holding up in court, but also studies of established practices of implementing national or international legal frameworks on environmental issues through citizen science.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Organizers: Hugh Gusterson, University of British Columbia; Allison Macfarlane, University of British Columbia
Too often technical experts and government officials have seen the management and disposition of (nuclear) waste as a problem to be solved by experts, with the solution then “sold” to the broader public through techniques of public relations that are often so transparently manipulative as to be self-undermining.  
Instead of seeing waste management and disposition as narrowly technical problems to be resolved through techniques of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they should be reframed as “wicked problems” (Churchman 1967, Rittel and Webber 1973) with the potential to disrupt good relations across a number of sociotechnical planes: between neighbors; between indigenous and settler populations; between corporations and local communities; between scientists and the public; and between state and society.  Is it possible to solve these problems without toxic social consequences?
For this panel, we call on colleagues to draw on STS and the knowledge of its multiple ancillary disciplines to imagine sociotechnical processes that could build good social, political, and environmental relations.  This might involve critique of existing processes, reportage of innovative improvements, or advocacy of novel processes.  It will surely involve multi-perspectival visioning.  Our primary interest is in nuclear waste, but we will entertain proposed papers on other waste forms as well.
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Governments and the private sector across the world, and increasingly in the global South, are investing both effort and money to build digital infrastructures to enable the adoption of the ostensible technological panacea that is the “smart city.” Smart cities have the potential to utilize digital infrastructure and data to improve service provision, monitor development and even mitigate carbon emissions. However, ‘good relations’ and frameworks of responsibility and solidarity around the transitions to digital governance and technocratic decision-making need to be better understood. This is especially for cities in the global South which face actue issues of marginalization and data-driven inequities.
This panel will focus on how “smart cities” are reshaping relations between public institutions, the private sector and urban residents with the potential to marginalize, silence or disadvantage communities in the face of new political-economic nexuses. We welcome empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that address questions including, but not limited to:
-What imaginaries are currently being represented in the frameworks of the “smart city”?
-How might the datafication of cities change geographies of power in urban spaces?
-What is the role of the private sector in provision of ‘public’ digital infrastructures in smart cities and what are its implications for urban governance?
-What role does ‘data-driven governance’ play in altering access and civic engagement, especially for the most marginalized?
-What frameworks are emerging to ensure fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of the use of digital data for urban governance?
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Format: Open Panel 
The governance of emerging technologies exceeds the boundaries of national governments and corporations. Actors and organizations of all types engage in relationships that constantly shape the development of novel technologies. Some organizations operate at the boundaries of policy and science and are usually composed of networks that connect actors and other organizations across different scales (local, regional, and global) to further common goals and agendas. This panel aims to explore the more or less unequal distributions of power in two types of networks: a) networks that facilitate the development of public interest technologies, b) networks that focus on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public interest technologies are technological applications explicitly designed to affect public sector goals (public health; conservation, etc). SDGs advance sustainability goals in dimensions such as ending poverty, improving health, and preserving the natural environment. Surrounding networks thus wrestle with visions of the public good as well as with innovation narratives, structures of power, and organizational culture. We are interested in understanding how different network configurations and power distributions overcome a variety of challenges, such as scarcity of resources, conflicts of interests, and others. We propose an examination of the structures of power and inequality within and across these networks as well as the implications for human health and the environment.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Inequalities and (in)justices have taken center stage in discussions about the global ecological crisis.  The effects of vector-borne diseases increasing health inequalities, the rise of social movements fighting for social and racial equity, and the uneven socio-physical and intellectual realities of the Anthropocene have renewed questions about how scholars and practitioners conceptualize and enact notions of agency and power in the study, practice, and governance of environmental conflicts. 
Today, many agree that ecological change disproportionately impacts communities across class, race, gender, species, and ecosystems. However, the complex mechanisms by which these inequalities arise, the multiple agencies and power relations that enable these disparities, and their long-lasting effects across species are still under-theorized and under-historized. Furthermore, the challenge to compellingly address human and non-human agencies remains across realms of social activism and academic thinking—particularly in contexts where accounts on non-human agencies seem divorced from pressing social justice agendas. 
This panel invites discussions that incorporate underrepresented agents (e.g., indigenous peoples, future generations, sexual and gender minorities, grassroots organizations) and non-humans (e.g., chemical forms, technologies, animals, and ecosystems) into a broader understanding of agency and power in the study and governance of environmental conflicts. It welcomes approaches from research to activism and policymaking that unveil new research/action pathways to advance our understanding of how socio-technical-ecological assemblages (re)produce inequalities. It urges attention to methodologies for socio-historical research and activism that address issues of colonialism and violence and that engage with intellectual trajectories and knowledge systems across the so-called Global North and South.
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Salomé Skvirsky (2020) defines the process genre, or “how-to”-ness, as “the sequentially ordered representations of making or doing something.” Moving beyond the question of replicability in experimentation (e.g., Collins 1985), we take inspiration from Skvirsky to invite submissions that explore aesthetic qualities of the how-to genre in knowledge-making practices. Specifically, we want to extend her analysis to scientific and social-scientific manuals. In thinking about objects like field guides, ethnographic textbooks, ecological surveys, personal research journals, archeological codes and conventions, we ask: what kind of affects, attachments and aesthetic experiences are produced and reproduced in the doing of science and through its representation in manuals? Svkirsky focuses on absorption, but we also invite papers that explore other feelings like boredom, love, anxiety, resentment, awe, etc. How are they enabled by the “how-to” genre of the manual? And how does this genre produce, reproduce, and disrupt relations, good or otherwise, between knowledge producers, objects of study, disciplines, institutions, and places? 
The manual is also a genre of theory seen in the exemplar of J. L. Austin’s How to do Things With Words, Bruno Latour’s Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society and, to a certain extent, in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We therefore invite submissions that interrogate a “how-to” manual as an object of analysis, but also as a mode of STS analysis and theorization, or, better yet, written in the how-to genre itself! 
H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Salomé Skvirsky, The Process Genre: Cinema and the Aesthetic of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2020)
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Precision agriculture (PA) are assemblages of software and hardware technologies—notably tractors and unmanned aerial vehicles with built-in multi and hyperspectral camera sensors—for data collection, analysis, and control of farm equipment and decision-support systems that recommend farmers about site-specific planting, spraying, and harvesting decisions.  PA is heralded as a “digital revolution” that will allow farming to meet grand challenges of the 21st century, including food security and climate change. However, these technologies also bring along with them several social and ethical costs for networks of agri-food practitioners. For example, PA is rescripting labor and creating new rural subjectivities that reimagines the role of agricultural practitioners and politics of knowledge, and poses questions about the prospects and perils of surveillance capitalism. The social and ethical risks of PA on farming and non-farming communities are not entirely predictable, and by virtue of technology’s newness, have little to no historical precedent. This panel seeks papers that attends to such concerns of digitalization in agriculture. The panel welcomes empirical, theoretical and methodological papers that are intellectually committed to explore the social and political effects of PA through participatory and deliberative approaches that include perspectives of multiple and diverse stakeholders or literatures across local, regional, or global food systems.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
Engaging with the 4S 2021 conference theme, this panel explores the practices and consequences of data inclusion and exclusion in unequal worlds. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers examining health data projects of various scales, that consider some of the following questions: What are the various promises of diversity linked to data projects and how do these promises shape inclusion and exclusion practices, efforts, and outcomes? What are the tradeoffs and dilemmas inherent in and arising from narratives and practices of inclusion in health data projects? What are the drivers of activism around inclusion in health data and, alternatively, what drives resistance? How do current struggles for inclusion in health data today differ from demands for inclusion in the past? What sorts of visibilities and erasures might inclusion and exclusion in health data produce? This panel invites papers examining data assemblages and what it means to be counted (or not) in health data, to whom, and for what ends. Papers might address, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of various identifiers and statuses in state surveillance systems, the participation or refusal of communities in health data repositories, interrogations of public and private institutions that seek to obscure data collection, and erasures and ethical challenges that arise as data emerge from and circulate across geographic scales from the local to the transnational.
This session investigates how experimental medicine, novel therapeutics, emerging medical technologies, and new diagnostics shape, maintain, and connect to social inequalities. The session addresses how race, gender, class, and other forms of social stratification impact access to and the development of innovative medicine. We are interested in who receives new therapeutics, to which problems or conditions medical attention and innovation attend, and the role of trials and experimentation. Papers might address questions such as: Who stands to benefit from emerging medicine? Who can access new therapies once they are commodified? How are funds and attention applied to – or withheld from – different types of disease? How does medicine drive or reproduce social inequalities? How are vulnerable people or bodies selected as test subjects for emerging therapeutics? We also invite papers that engage with the conference theme and address instances of good (or better) relations among researchers, participants, therapeutics, and illness communities. Here, we seek to consider if and how medical innovations respond to social inequalities, and if we can imagine a more equitable and just approach to experimental medicine. We welcome papers that tie STS research and theory to these concerns and are interested in a broad range of topics and approaches that address tensions between innovation and inequality.
This session investigates how experimental medicine, novel therapeutics, emerging medical technologies, and new diagnostics shape, maintain, and connect to social inequalities. The session addresses how race, gender, class, and other forms of social stratification impact access to and the development of innovative medicine. We are interested in who receives new therapeutics, to which problems or conditions medical attention and innovation attend, and the role of trials and experimentation. Papers might address questions such as: Who stands to benefit from emerging medicine? Who can access new therapies once they are commodified? How are funds and attention applied to – or withheld from – different types of disease? How does medicine drive or reproduce social inequalities? How are vulnerable people or bodies selected as test subjects for emerging therapeutics? We also invite papers that engage with the conference theme and address instances of good (or better) relations among researchers, participants, therapeutics, and illness communities. Here, we seek to consider if and how medical innovations respond to social inequalities, and if we can imagine a more equitable and just approach to experimental medicine. We welcome papers that tie STS research and theory to these concerns and are interested in a broad range of topics and approaches that address tensions between innovation and inequality.
This session investigates how experimental medicine, novel therapeutics, emerging medical technologies, and new diagnostics shape, maintain, and connect to social inequalities. The session addresses how race, gender, class, and other forms of social stratification impact access to and the development of innovative medicine. We are interested in who receives new therapeutics, to which problems or conditions medical attention and innovation attend, and the role of trials and experimentation. Papers might address questions such as: Who stands to benefit from emerging medicine? Who can access new therapies once they are commodified? How are funds and attention applied to – or withheld from – different types of disease? How does medicine drive or reproduce social inequalities? How are vulnerable people or bodies selected as test subjects for emerging therapeutics? We also invite papers that engage with the conference theme and address instances of good (or better) relations among researchers, participants, therapeutics, and illness communities. Here, we seek to consider if and how medical innovations respond to social inequalities, and if we can imagine a more equitable and just approach to experimental medicine. We welcome papers that tie STS research and theory to these concerns and are interested in a broad range of topics and approaches that address tensions between innovation and inequality.
This session investigates how experimental medicine, novel therapeutics, emerging medical technologies, and new diagnostics shape, maintain, and connect to social inequalities. The session addresses how race, gender, class, and other forms of social stratification impact access to and the development of innovative medicine. We are interested in who receives new therapeutics, to which problems or conditions medical attention and innovation attend, and the role of trials and experimentation. Papers might address questions such as: Who stands to benefit from emerging medicine? Who can access new therapies once they are commodified? How are funds and attention applied to – or withheld from – different types of disease? How does medicine drive or reproduce social inequalities? How are vulnerable people or bodies selected as test subjects for emerging therapeutics? We also invite papers that engage with the conference theme and address instances of good (or better) relations among researchers, participants, therapeutics, and illness communities. Here, we seek to consider if and how medical innovations respond to social inequalities, and if we can imagine a more equitable and just approach to experimental medicine. We welcome papers that tie STS research and theory to these concerns and are interested in a broad range of topics and approaches that address tensions between innovation and inequality.
This session investigates how experimental medicine, novel therapeutics, emerging medical technologies, and new diagnostics shape, maintain, and connect to social inequalities. The session addresses how race, gender, class, and other forms of social stratification impact access to and the development of innovative medicine. We are interested in who receives new therapeutics, to which problems or conditions medical attention and innovation attend, and the role of trials and experimentation. Papers might address questions such as: Who stands to benefit from emerging medicine? Who can access new therapies once they are commodified? How are funds and attention applied to – or withheld from – different types of disease? How does medicine drive or reproduce social inequalities? How are vulnerable people or bodies selected as test subjects for emerging therapeutics? We also invite papers that engage with the conference theme and address instances of good (or better) relations among researchers, participants, therapeutics, and illness communities. Here, we seek to consider if and how medical innovations respond to social inequalities, and if we can imagine a more equitable and just approach to experimental medicine. We welcome papers that tie STS research and theory to these concerns and are interested in a broad range of topics and approaches that address tensions between innovation and inequality.
This session investigates how experimental medicine, novel therapeutics, emerging medical technologies, and new diagnostics shape, maintain, and connect to social inequalities. The session addresses how race, gender, class, and other forms of social stratification impact access to and the development of innovative medicine. We are interested in who receives new therapeutics, to which problems or conditions medical attention and innovation attend, and the role of trials and experimentation. Papers might address questions such as: Who stands to benefit from emerging medicine? Who can access new therapies once they are commodified? How are funds and attention applied to – or withheld from – different types of disease? How does medicine drive or reproduce social inequalities? How are vulnerable people or bodies selected as test subjects for emerging therapeutics? We also invite papers that engage with the conference theme and address instances of good (or better) relations among researchers, participants, therapeutics, and illness communities. Here, we seek to consider if and how medical innovations respond to social inequalities, and if we can imagine a more equitable and just approach to experimental medicine. We welcome papers that tie STS research and theory to these concerns and are interested in a broad range of topics and approaches that address tensions between innovation and inequality.
This session investigates how experimental medicine, novel therapeutics, emerging medical technologies, and new diagnostics shape, maintain, and connect to social inequalities. The session addresses how race, gender, class, and other forms of social stratification impact access to and the development of innovative medicine. We are interested in who receives new therapeutics, to which problems or conditions medical attention and innovation attend, and the role of trials and experimentation. Papers might address questions such as: Who stands to benefit from emerging medicine? Who can access new therapies once they are commodified? How are funds and attention applied to – or withheld from – different types of disease? How does medicine drive or reproduce social inequalities? How are vulnerable people or bodies selected as test subjects for emerging therapeutics? We also invite papers that engage with the conference theme and address instances of good (or better) relations among researchers, participants, therapeutics, and illness communities. Here, we seek to consider if and how medical innovations respond to social inequalities, and if we can imagine a more equitable and just approach to experimental medicine. We welcome papers that tie STS research and theory to these concerns and are interested in a broad range of topics and approaches that address tensions between innovation and inequality.
This session investigates how experimental medicine, novel therapeutics, emerging medical technologies, and new diagnostics shape, maintain, and connect to social inequalities. The session addresses how race, gender, class, and other forms of social stratification impact access to and the development of innovative medicine. We are interested in who receives new therapeutics, to which problems or conditions medical attention and innovation attend, and the role of trials and experimentation. Papers might address questions such as: Who stands to benefit from emerging medicine? Who can access new therapies once they are commodified? How are funds and attention applied to – or withheld from – different types of disease? How does medicine drive or reproduce social inequalities? How are vulnerable people or bodies selected as test subjects for emerging therapeutics? We also invite papers that engage with the conference theme and address instances of good (or better) relations among researchers, participants, therapeutics, and illness communities. Here, we seek to consider if and how medical innovations respond to social inequalities, and if we can imagine a more equitable and just approach to experimental medicine. We welcome papers that tie STS research and theory to these concerns and are interested in a broad range of topics and approaches that address tensions between innovation and inequality.
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
Innovation is a central element within public and private discussions over the form and direction of socio-technical change. However, ‘innovation’ as a topic presents STS scholars with a number of closely-related dilemmas. Is our role to deconstruct and challenge the very idea of innovation or else to seek ways of augmenting and developing it in a more socially-engaged and responsible fashion? Should we view innovation as a source of social and environmental challenges or else as a positive means of addressing those same challenges? Given the fast-expanding literature within Innovation Studies in particular, should STS scholars seek to build intellectual bridges with neighbouring disciplines or else develop more distinctive theoretical and empirical perspectives? Faced with uncertain and unequal worlds, is innovation – and innovation scholarship – part of the problem or the solution?
In this session, we invite contributions from STS scholars whose work addresses the interface between innovation, STS and ‘good relations’: including global issues of inequality and uncertainty. We welcome empirical studies exploring innovation in specific contexts but also those which seek new conceptual possibilities regarding STS and innovation. 
What is – and what should be – the relationship between STS scholarship, innovation and the building of stronger social and environmental relations? And what does this mean for the future governance and practice of innovation?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
International scientific consortia play an ever more central role in efforts to address global challenges such as how to respond to major health emergencies, the development of new, clean sources of energy, and how to preserve our environment. This has given rise to numerous questions about the structures of  international scientific consortia, and about how these are changing scientific work. Which are the different types of organisational forms that these consortia adopt? And how are these consortia situated within the broader context of the scientific endeavour? What do we know about the social, organizational, and political dynamics of international scientific consortia? What kind of stakeholders are involved? And which organisational frameworks are used to deal with specific coordination challenges tied to international scientific consortia? What are scientists’ practical experiences with international scientific consortia? And how do these relate to underlying knowledge infrastructures? 
How could the social, organizational and political dynamics of international scientific consortia be studied best? Which methods should be employed? Last but not least: what might be ideas to improve knowledge infrastructures of international scientific consortia? And what is the role of STS scholars in a process of designing knowledge infrastructures and/or facilitating international scientific consortia?
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
Initiatives to stimulate innovation through “co-creation” among diverse actors are proliferating, whether driven from the top-down through governments and policy instruments (e.g. in living labs, public procurement of innovation and pre-commercial procurement) or bottom-up by business or civil society (e.g. in social innovation). But can and does co-creation (in its multiple configurations) really contribute to democratizing innovation, legitimizing interventions, addressing grand societal challenges, and facilitating sociotechnical transitions? How is co-creation enacted in practice? How do power asymmetries and incumbency shape co-creation outcomes? What are the possibilities and problems of efforts to scale-up co-creation across different locations? And how should we interrogate the practices, rhetoric, and normative implications of of co-creation? 
In this panel, we interrogate the processes, practices, problems, publics and power structures surrounding the inflationary use of “co-creation” as remedy for innovation skepticism and democratic deficits — often combined with effort of up-scaling and replication its processes and results. We welcome empirical cases drawing on a variety of methods, analyses of co-creative practices that build on extant concepts in STS and neighboring fields, and new theoretical and conceptual developments. Comparative approaches across national boundaries, co-creation instruments, and technological domains and applications are more than welcome.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
This panel focuses on consequences of technological interruptions in design from STS perspectives, and questions what we lose to these interruptions through feminist lenses. Technology’s disruption of the social has long been a topic in STS. Our panel extends this inquiry into technological interruptions in the practice of design where outcomes impact the social politically and economically. Design is often framed in opposition to craft as mental activity versus embodied activity. In contrast to this false dichotomy, we see design as a craft performing in a network of mind, body, tools, and matter. These sympathetic relationships between mind and hands, hands and tools, tools and matter play creative roles in design processes. It is our position that automated technologies like Building Information Softwares and Digital Fabrication Tools in design interrupt this link. These technologies privilege design as a purely mental activity and disregard the role of embodied activities in the process. Designers who use these technologies are constrained by their knowledge and skills. Additionally, whether intentionally or not, these technologies contain and perpetuate biases that then become part of the design process. What do we lose in creative processes interrupted by automated technologies? What type of biases impact the design process and how do they impact them? How do we frame the creative process of design as a feminist question? We invite scholarship that looks critically into how a feminist lens may help us reconceptualize the creative process through these automated technologies.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
Recent years have seen an outpouring of work on platforms and platformization. However, scholars in this emerging field confront many kinds of uncertainty. Platforms are notoriously opaque. Often, datasets are proprietary, technologies, black-boxed, and firms’ secrets, guarded by aggressive NDAs. The constitutive reflexivity of platforms–the fact that they bring multiple actors into relation by definition, and use the ways we know them to know us–raises profound questions about positionality and expertise. The very term “platform” is ideological. One uncertainty is whether scholars should center it at all. 
This panel will address the conceptual and practical challenges involved in knowing platforms. Scholars have approached this topic from many disciplinary backgrounds. We invite reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of methods ranging from visiting archives to conducting interviews, participating in social movements to computationally analyzing platform outputs. We seek work that examines (possible) alliances among academics, platforms, and users, as well as journalists, activists, and policymakers, and the power relations that permeate them. Recent controversies have highlighted the power of technology firms to share or withhold data, and harass or fire researchers. At the same time, austerity is shifting power relations within and between the academy and “the public.” Acknowledging the longstanding systems of oppression and exploitation that continue to shape these developments, we especially encourage papers that center the expertise of vulnerable users. We aim to build not only knowledge but community among those who want their research on platforms to advance more just relations in an uncertain world.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
The unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global lockdown, the social distance restrictions, and the sanitary risk have created a breeding ground for an accelerated and unregulated expansion of digital platforms. Big data and artificial intelligence technologies have deepened that path of transformation by automating different spheres of economic, social, and political reproduction around the world. Businesses, workers, and consumers heavily rely on the use of platforms, services, and online work making visible new socio-technical arrangements of the so-called “gig economy.” These new forms of production organization and work management bring opportunities for growth and profit, but also new forms of value extraction and exploitation. Under these conditions, new forms of resistance and organization have emerged in order to bargain the algorithmic labor management methods that companies are implementing. This panel aims to explore the effects of the widespread use of online platforms, algorithm management and other related technologies, and organizational methods in improving or worsening working conditions; and we are also looking for best-practice experiences oriented to the amelioration of working conditions based on fair work principles. The contributions to this panel are open, but are not limited to comparative analysis or case studies of how algorithmic labor management methods impact working conditions; we also seek contributions of how organizations engage on the social bargaining of algorithms, and other social actions aimed at negotiating, reducing, regulating, changing or counteracting those effects of algorithmic management on working conditions.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Goodness is fickle. Goodness is fragile, Martha Nussbaum has argued; and it is potent. Good relations come with agency, legitimacy or care, depending on the moral regime that goodness is inflected in.
This panel explores how moralities shape and are shaped in worlds equipped with a plethora of technologies. The panel focuses on the heterogeneous moralities, brittle and persistent, that animate the mediatized, digitized, and datafied dealings of today.
The panel proceeds from the hypothesis that today’s technicized worlds re-mix and re-configure regimes of goodness and of engagement (Laurent Thévenot). Digital technologies, Noortje Marres notes, may transform the situational fabric of the everyday, synthesizing public and private in novel ways. Web algorithms, e.g., rank postings and invoke users according to distinct logics of valuation (Andreas Birkbak and Hjalmar Bang Carlsen). When myriad practices are coordinated in far-flung assemblages, public justification, organized planning, and intimate care interlock, clash or undermine one another (María Puig de la Bellacasa).
Against this backdrop, the panel tends to the weak, wicked, and poor relations that lack agency, legitimacy, and care. It examines affected non-users and uses (Eric Baumer), bystanders (Susann Wagenknecht), conspirators (Timothy Choy), traitors, trespassers, and intruders—shadowy figures that fail to entertain good relations. Drawing attention to bystanding, treason, coterie, contagion (Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock), and carelessness, the panel sets out to tackle a range of uneasy techno-moral figurations.
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Men have made significant contributions to each era of the last four centuries of feminist movements. And they have done so in diverse ways, which have been linked to the particular character of each feminist movement—Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, women of color, anti-colonial, indigenous, LGBT, and others.  Yet there exists little documentation of how this has occurred in Latin America, in the past or today.  Consequently, there has been little or no attention to men’s identifiably feminist contributions to the Latin American production of knowledge.
What are the distinctive features of men’s Latin American feminisms historically?  Has the persistent production of both practices and stereotypes of machismo obscured at least some Latin American men’s pro-feminist activities? How has the recent increase in women leaders in 4S had effects on men’s 4S feminist thinking?    How have pro-feminist projects by the United Nations and other national and international organizations contributed to men’s feminisms in Latin America? What are the challenges and resources today for feminist men’s knowledge production projects in different parts of Latin America?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
Data-driven methods such as machine learning and artificial intelligence and their development for and deployment in a wide variety of social and societal contexts are currently experiencing a critical moment of academic, media and political discussion. This applies not least to the realm of law and legal practice:
With applications such as forecasting court decisions via machine learning algorithms, automated reading, scanning and creation of legal texts, predictability of legal disputes, participatory tools for democratising legal practice comes the promise of innovation within the legal system. However, this innovation is not always welcomed enthusiastically and requires critical inquiry.
An STS perspective is particularly fruitful in this realm when it comes to understanding the implementation dynamics and potential consequences of legal technologies. This open panel invites empirical and theoretical contributions that address the following questions and more:
Which actors discuss legal technologies? 
Who benefits from the envisioned predictive power of machine learning?
In what ways are legal practices and epistemologies shaped and reconceptualised by the application of data-driven methods?
To what extent can legal technologies contribute to rethinking the relations between the individual and the legal apparatus and thereby contribute to “Good Relations”?
Do the conceptual differences between a case-law system and a codified law system play a role in the question of compatibility with Big Data applications?
To what extent is the potential of legal technologies overestimated and/or underestimated?
How can law be rethought in light of data-driven methods?
Is law facing an epistemological conflict between formalist and correlative approaches?
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
This panel centers decolonial, feminist science studies to explore material bodies as infrastructures that alternately stabilize and contest structural inequity. It does so by foregrounding the construction of load-bearing bodies —human and otherwise— suspended amidst the weight and tension of unequal relations. In so doing, we aim to investigate the blurred boundaries of bodies and the structures they entail, especially those of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchy. Material burdens settle into bodies, embedding privilege and subjection within capacities and orientations that can be difficult to dislodge. As such, bodies become scalar archives for uneven intra-actions among techno-political, scientific, and ecological processes. From them, we can locate antiblackness and white supremacy in toxicities that sediment into certain beings, but away from others. We can chart geographies of surrogacy from those of imperial plunder. At the same time, attuning to bodily matters can bring alternative possibilities into alignment. Demands to repatriate medical specimens offer fulcrums for indigenous sovereignties. Tracking hormonal indicators can subvert sexed dynasties in religious education.
We seek papers that grapple with the potentialities of load-bearing bodies in relation to durable inequities. We hope to address how bodily burdens maintain disparate conditions, and how bodily stuff can animate good relations for liberatory horizons. We look forward to developing theoretical and methodological conversations across locations and time periods, with particular interest in knotty entanglements of beings, buildings, politics, environments, institutions, infrastructures, and their constituent matters. We hope that an open, hybrid panel will deepen scholarly networks concerned with STS and justice.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated logistical blunders have many wondering what could have been done better in terms of planning for, and responding to, a public health emergency. But disaster research has long dealt with the problem of anticipating the unprecedented, and preparing to respond effectively to novel emergencies. What nuances can the 2020 crisis teach STS scholars and students of disasters about “normal accidents,” increasing organizational reliability and resilience, “practical drift,” and epistemic challenges? In what ways are failures in protecting public health applicable (or not) to other realms of anticipating and calculating risks? How might flexible response strategies for future emergencies look like, especially ones that don’t rely on “technical fixes” (or legal fixes, etc.)? Which infrastructures exist, need to be created, might be developed? Who ought to be trained to respond, and how? How can we enhance equity during emergency response? What role might STS expertise play in bringing a comprehensive perspective to the table?
The panel welcomes contributions from scholars studying preparedness and response strategies – be that in public health or energy policy, from the perspective of climate policy or international governance, etc. It invites contributions from organizational, technical, training, and historical perspectives, to mention just a few.
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Over the last decades, higher education and research systems have been characterized by deep changes, due to globalization and marketization, that have dramatically transformed research careers. While doctoral and postdoctoral researchers constitute a fast-growing workforce, their working conditions have become increasingly precarious and their career prospects uncertain. Those processes tend to exacerbate and create new forms of gendered inequalities for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), first and foremost women – that have been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis (Gewin, 2020). Those inequalities are also reinforced by disparities within academia linked to other social determinants, such as origin, race, citizenship, geographic location, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or ability.
The main goal of this panel is thus to explore inequalities faced by ECRs from a gender perspective and to analyze existing and forthcoming possible dialogues between ECRs and stakeholders in the research ecosystem at the systemic level (policy-makers) and the institutional level (senior researchers, academic managers).
Here are some topics we would like to address in the panel :
– How to enforce policies that ensure better career prospects and career development within and outside academia and to assess their effectiveness and impact?
– How to better integrate ECRs and their interests into decision-making bodies?
– How to tackle gender-based violence at the early career stage within academia, and to disrupt current sexist discourses?
– How to introduce an intersectional analysis to research policies to account for a more complex understanding of how inequalities play out at the early career stage?
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
Science communication and public engagement with science are key mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is mediated, negotiated, and transformed. Over the past decades, STS research has outlined the ways in which science and society are co-produced through public communication activities and catalysed a shift towards dialogue and engagement in science communication practice. More recently, the question of the diverse relations that are performed in such communication have risen to the fore, as well as concerns about the nature of responsible public engagement, public (dis)trust in expertise, the dizzying impacts of social media, and debates about science’s role in public health. For instance, science communication has been crucial during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
This open panel invites paper proposals that analyse such ways that science is represented, transformed, contested or negotiated in public venues. Papers may explore, for instance, science and technology-related activism; science in social media; science in museums; deliberative experiments; popular science writing; science podcasting; sci­art activities; news media; or science comedy. We invite critical analysis of these sites and mechanisms. For example, papers might analyse the relations of publics and knowledges within particular science communication activities; discuss affective or temporal regimes of public engagement; explore how science is communicated to marginalized populations; or otherwise reflect on how STS might contribute to doing science in public in just, generous, and collaborative ways.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
The possibilities of leveraging Big Data through AI-based interventions are often poised to flow as innovations emerging from the Global North as the active center to the Global South as the passive periphery. Problematizing these flows, this panel is oriented towards showcasing that the Global South is neither a passive recipient, nor is it the periphery of these innovations. The panel invites submissions that identify new and/or reinterpret old concepts and keywords that underlie the emerging meaning(s) and future(s) of AI in the Global South. The range of conversations on this topic operates on a wide spectrum between optimism of leapfrogging and digital transformation of societies on one end and the pessimism of human suffering caused by new forms of data capitalism and colonialism on the other. Mapping this spectrum, the members of this panel will not only present their concepts, keywords, research methods, and case studies in understanding the building and consequences of these technologies, but also collaboratively engage with each other in developing a broader conceptual vocabulary of AI in the Global South. The panel asks what stories of AI are told and shared, what unequal and uncertain world(s) do these stories build, what hopes and concerns do they amplify, and what future(s) do they imagine in the Global South. After all, the concepts and keywords to describe the mutual shaping of AI and society have different intellectual trajectories in different parts of the world. Recognizing this difference is the first step towards understanding it.
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?
STS scholars have long been interested in the diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools such as shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments. As markets are digitized, consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, trading machines, and so on are key to how markets operate. Data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, playing crucial roles in the form of devices, valuation tools, infrastructures, and assets. 
This panel will explore these various facets of data, and how they help to bring markets into being.
We welcome empirical and theoretical investigations of markets as data. First, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine heterogeneous arrays of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new “data objects” and knowledge devices reconfigure practices? Second, data streams are fueling automation or decision-making systems: matching algorithms, trade desks, recommendation engines, smart contracts, market screening mechanisms, dashboards. How does automation reconfigure firms’ practices in markets? Third, data are increasingly marketized themselves, harvested from public-facing services such as social media. How do markets for data impact “conventional” markets? Finally, data practices are increasingly subject to specific governance that is often the object of fierce contestation: from regulation such as GDPR in Europe, industry-level self-regulation and labelling processes, to local framing within firms. How does the governance of data, and its contestation shape markets and marketization practices?