Domestic technologies as objects of the home: Deeply sociotechnical, the home mixes the personal, relational, and architectural. How do household technologies, from weighted blankets to kimchi fridges, produce domesticity? Technologies as domestic persons: From homemaker and domestic worker to digital assistant and autonomous vacuum cleaner, the home supports varied forms of personhood.
How do language, performance, and affective labor construct domestic technologies as persons—and humans as domestic technologies? How do materiality and design mark domestic technologies as persons and nonpersons? The domestication processes of technology: The deep familiarity of the home makes it also a terrain of uncanny valleys.
What practices, internal or external to the home, render domestic technologies acceptable, intimate, and familiar? What place does domesticity occupy in larger societal trajectories of technologies? We invite papers drawing on diverse contexts and methodologies. At the same time, there has been a renewed interest in the humanities and social sciences in engaging with many of the same materials at the centre of scientific discussions about the Anthropocene: fossils, minerals, soil, coal, plants, water, and so on. There are roughly three senses of the elemental.
In the first sense, elements are discrete chemical entities, like those named and schematised in the Periodic Table of Elements which celebrates its th anniversary this year. Elemental are the metals and non-metals of specific atomic compositions and weights, arranged and combined in diverse forms. In the second sense, the elemental names the environmental milieu, or material substrate, in which we are irrevocably embedded, in which different forms of life are immersed, enveloped, and take shape.
The third sense of the elemental is the ontological one, the philosophical correlate of the first. Here, the elemental is not a material resource or background, but is a claim about the conditions-of-possibility of being and matter themselves. For an elemental philosophy, there are forces or forms of matter from which every other material is derived; they are the condition and horizon of sensible involvement in the world Engelmann and McCormack, At once, the elemental situates us, embeds us, and is beyond us.
This panel seeks contributions that explore the value and limits of thinking our present elementally. Baskin J. Environmental Values 24 1 : Edwards PN. Boston: MIT Press, Engelmann, S and McCormack D. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 1 Peters JD. Emergent technologies and the implementation of new and innovative models, measures, and systems present rich sites for STS scholars to follow, understand, and intervene on technologies in the making Brey ; Guston As new technologies are implemented in existing biomedical research and healthcare infrastructures, they carry with them great promise to disrupt standards and routine practice as well as improve our understanding of health, illness, and the human body.
Yet as STS scholars have shown, technologies often reproduce and deepen existing disparities Eubanks ; Lee ; Murphy ; Noble ; Sankar et al. Studying how emergent technologies and systems are designed, regenerated, mechanized, commercialized, and integrated offers a window to understand the trajectory of technologies and the racialized, classed, and gendered logic of systems with which they interact. This panel invites empirical contributions that explore how emergent technologies and platforms are constructed, implemented, and standardized in biomedical and healthcare settings.
We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent technologies and systems for inequality and health justice. The topic of emotions enters into STS work in diverse way. Baier and Gilligan have offered ground breaking work on the importance of emotionality for feminist critiques of masculine and patriarchal social structures. The relation between emotions and beneficence, caring, and motivation to help have featured centrally in STS scholarship, e.
Empathy is frequently called for in clinical work as a means of improving care, e. Halpern Empathy and sympathy are considered as important for ethnographic work as a means of building trust and rapport, e. This open panel aims for a diverse array of papers on emotions and will consider the following questions:.
Baier, Annette C. Epstein, S. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Gilligan, Carol, Halpern, J. From idealized clinical empathy to empathic communication in medical care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17 2 , Polletta, F. Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements. University of Chicago Press. Putnam, L. Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. Emotion in organizations, 1, Reeves, S.
Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. Bmj, , a STS studies suggest that engineers gather heterogeneous entities in their projects J. Law, M. Callon, L. They make the technology work but also create a world around this technology B. A new world entails the possibility of searching funding and political support, building new social ontology and enacting necessary infrastructure.
Each engineer turns out to be a maker of a new world. However, such a picture contradicts the conventional vision. According to this vision, engineers usually rely on the standardized procedures and act as cogs in large technological systems. As such cogs, they tend to be as far as possible from the public discussions of their projects. So, who are the engineers today? The world-makers or those who perform a set of standard operations as far as possible away from public discussions? Are there cultural differences in such perceptions of engineers?
Our section invites all participants who are interested in technical expertise and public role of engineers to make a current snapshot of engineering profession around the world. The first two decades of the twenty-first century have witnessed increasingly complex questions about ethics in biomedical research, health policy, and clinical practice—from the flourishing field of postgenomic research to the rapidly changing world of reproductive biomedicine. This open panel explores ethical issues in health and biomedicine that are being innovated by and regenerated with STS perspectives.
This panel provides renewed attention to how ethics is and can be conceived and constructed by stakeholders involved in shaping and disseminating biomedical knowledge, and it interrogates how differently-situated actors in the biomedical sciences—from researchers and policymakers to those in the clinic—make sense of, define, challenge, and shape what is considered ethical in their work, and the consequences for health delivery and outcomes. Paper submissions may include, but need not be limited by, questions such as: How do biomedical researchers decide which questions about health need to be addressed?
How do they conceptualize risk, and how do they recruit research subjects? What considerations matter to biomedical researchers when they convey their results? How and when do health-care policymakers decide to prioritize certain topics? How do policymakers construct guidelines and rules for health research, and to what extent do they consider the impact of their policymaking on different populations?
How, when, and why do clinicians offer health testing, information, and interventions to their patients? How do clinicians navigate their various ethical obligations and responsibilities in promoting health and health care across population groups? We invite empirical papers from multiple disciplinary perspectives. What does STS look like—in its research questions, priorities, and theoretical interlocutors—when race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, migration, citizenship, indigeneity, and blackness, among others, become central problem spaces?
Similarly, what does ethnic studies look like when science and technology become fundamental subjects and objects of investigation? When faced with obdurate systems, social movements often create experimental infrastructures that suggest radical new arrangements of resources, knowledges, and power.
While these systems are often materially insufficient to immediately address the full scale of the problems that inspired them, they have the potential to reorganize the conditions that limit what people imagine as possible. What is the role of small-scale systems in pushing large-scale change? How do designers, developers, and maintainers of small-scale experimental infrastructures imagine the work of scaling up, building out, or strengthening these systems? How do they challenge the limits of time, materiality, and imagination? And how do small-scale infrastructural innovations challenge and reproduce relations of power?
In this open panel, we invite scholars and organizers who are working with movement-built infrastructures in a wide array of arenas. Fundamentally, we are seeking to better understand how projects with incredible potential could scale in ways that change the conditions of possibility in the direction of a wildly different world.
By pulling together these examples, we aim to help each other imagine alternative futures beyond what we can currently conceptualize, and develop strategies for getting from here to there. How should STS approach expert domains that, instead of relying on a codified stock of objective knowledge, privilege the subjective? This panel invites papers about cases including emerging professions and unevenly regulated fields in which experts routinely and explicitly draw on personal experience, beliefs, ethics, and values to make decisions, legitimate their work, and set standards.
Such cases depart from many of the core assumptions of STS scholarship on the social production of scientific knowledge. From the Social Construction of Technology to Actor-Network theory, sociomateriality to infrastructure analysis, human judgment and social interaction are shown by analysts to be crucial in the process and outcome of knowledge production in scientific professions.
In most such accounts, analysts reveal that the social production of facts and knowledge is core to a field that is typically—and erroneously—assumed to be objective. Scholars of the professions, too, have tended to presume objectivity as a feature or goal of the standardized bodies of abstract knowledge they describe professionals as applying to particular cases and defending from competitors.
Antifragile Book Summary: A Review of Key Concepts and Applications
Yet some domains of expert work, like the demedicalized midwifery and nonprofit consulting fields the organizers of this panel study, trouble this assumption with their embrace of the interpretive and the subjective. How might STS contend with knowledge production and standard-setting in these expert domains that do not have uniform goals of objectivity or codified and settled bodies of knowledge? How do other features of expert domains, including codes of ethics and forms of licensure or credentialing, differ in these circumstances?
What challenges are presented for prevailing assumptions in STS about the process of knowledge production or standard-setting by considering expert domains that do not rely on the codified knowledge-producing activities and expectations that characterize the subjects of much STS attention to expertise and the professions?
Healthy oceans contribute significantly to combating climate change. However, a lack of ocean scientific knowledge continues to challenge efforts to protect ocean ecosystems. This gap is steadily closed by global initiatives like the International Census of Marine Life programme. Furthermore, detection methods, observing infrastructures and data management have significantly improved over the past two decades, reconfiguring how oceans are studied and monitored. In many respects, the study and monitoring of the oceans represents a new form of knowledge production. Challenges include producing systemic insights into ocean ecology; working toward industrial-scale production of innovations; providing scientific data to support environmental policy; and operating against the backdrop of a highly research-focused academic system.
These developments are amplified by data scarcity, complicating the command of funding and shaping policies and practices of studying, monitoring and protecting the oceans. This panel invites contributions on the socio-technical, epistemic, geo political, historical and ethical dimension of these developments, including case studies related to global and national policies and practices of ocean science and monitoring.
Which dynamics occur when ocean science becomes even more subject to multiple valuation registers, including those associated with steering efforts toward more interdisciplinary engagement, societal relevance and demands from policy-makers? How do monitoring policies and practices contribute to the scientific representation of the ocean and its manifestation as a site, where different technological innovations compete for scientific legitimacy and marketability? What are key innovations in ocean science and marine technology and how do they shape the policies and practices of the field?
Universalist models of innovation face a crisis of both technical reproducibility and societal support. The geography of innovation is thoroughly unequal. National Innovation Systems or best practice transfer e. Silicon Valley. At the heart of this problem is the persistent inability to seriously include local socio-economic traditions, political cultures, and regional identity into mainstream innovation theory. We invite contributions incl.
How do globally circulating models interrupt or, perhaps, regenerate existing regional identities and institutional orders? What happens when populations reject or subvert innovation initiatives? What alternative imaginations of economic prosperity and epistemic authority do they propose instead? We argue that the successes and failures of innovation policy in regions cannot be explained without taking into account the locally specific understandings of what innovation is, what and who it is for, how it relates to local history and identity, and in which political culture it is embedded — even if, on the face of it, the policy instruments look the same.
The agri-food sector is seeing a tidal wave of innovation. With the backing of venture capital, scientists cum entrepreneurs are deploying new techniques in artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, tissue engineering, digitalization, big data analytics, robotics, and other fields, with the aim of both improving upon and disrupting farming and food production. Papers selected for this open call will draw on case study material to build upon these emergent observations.
We are particularly interested in papers that cross fertilize questions and concerns from STS, such as public acceptance of technology, with those of food studies, such as the exceptionalism of food and agriculture. More pointedly, we ask how and to what extent do food and farm tech entrepreneurs engage the specificity of food and farming as organic, biological processes uniquely laden with cultural meaning in their techno-utopian dreams for Anthropocene futures.
At its heart, it shares concerns for subjectivities that are devalued, marginalized or erased through technoscientific practices. This panel re connects reflexively with these ethico-political commitments and sensibilities.
- Acute and Chronic Finger Injuries in Ball Sports (Sports and Traumatology).
- Craig Sams (Author of The Little Food Book).
- I Want The World To Know.
We will explore how the disruptive, inventive and re generative potential of FSTS might give rise to new and alternative, if partial and imperfect, worlds of scholarship and living. We want to understand how we can trouble and reinvent our methods and concerns in order to re configure the precarious and unstable worlds in which we live and work. How can we move our commitments beyond the academy; how must methods and theories change; how might they then reconfigure academia itself?
Which novel collaborations, networks and assemblages can we forge; what roles can FSTS research not take? How might we mobilize ambivalences and situated knowledges to connect with worlds inhospitable to them; what challenges and dangers lie therein? Modern finance is highly dependent on technology and scientific research.
The interdependency is clearly apparent in the extent to which the financial sector actively supports research in-house, and in university and government institutions. The relationship is mutually beneficial. Scientists demonstrate the relevance of their work to society through use by financial interests. In turn, financial interests garner legitimacy from the high esteem society bestows on science and scientists.
Yet, society also struggles with its modern financial systems at every level: from global economic instability to the equitable allocation of financial resources at the individual level. Often these struggles are tied to changes in scientific knowledge and the mis use of technology. What new insights are gained by shifting the focus on finance from one of market mechanism and legal obligation to one of science, technology and innovation? How do these new insights expand the options available for improving progress towards higher order societal goals and financial accountability?
In what ways has financial processes become inescapably political due to its close relationship to the politics of science and technology? Film and video have the ability to intersect with history and STS through documentary and animation practice. The purpose of this workshop is to have a dialogue about the practices and uses of film-making and animation in and outside of academia, specifically in the context of history, ethnography and STS. The format of this is in a round table workshop format. It will commence by asking participants what brings them to the workshop, a few short films will be shown and then a guided discussion will center around these questions.
What makes a film academically sound? Where are the sources? What strategies are used to tell the story and is the storytelling successful in its own terms? There are many types of digital storytelling and many different story arcs so this session is inclusive of different forms of storytelling. How is it made and who is the audience? Is it created for a television or mainstream film context, or youtube? Is it archival documentation? Or is it a DIY video made for immediate distribution to specific communities?
Politics are an essential dimension of nearly every case study and conceptual innovation in STS, although, with rare exception, the future of politics and the politics of the future are rarely the topic of rigorous, sustained discussion. The problem though is that this assumption no longer seems to serve scholars looking to ask difficult questions about the future of politics and the politics of the future, which now seem more important than ever. Whose politics? Which futures? Who or what is actually invited or involved to plan for the future of global and national politics?
Submissions about governance, the state, imaginaries, politics, and the future or futures are all welcome in the sessions that populate this panel. Games are flexible epistemic objects, variously constructed as entertainment, military and logistics simulations, communications technologies, scientific apparatuses, cultural artifacts, art, and media. With a few notable exceptions, however, academic analyses of games and game development practices tend to be the domain of media and cultural studies scholars, which produce vibrant—but disciplinary-inflected—research practices, perspectives, and interpretations.
After the advent of the robot Pepper, humanoid robots are now living with us in everyday life. Compared with smart home devices, i. Meanwhile, the bodies of the humanoid robots are shaping discourses of sexuality. For example, the Campaign against Sex Robots in the UK thinks sex robots reinforce male domination and sexual exploitation of women and children, while the sex-robot supporter Dr. Hence, the bodies of the robots are gendered and racial. Although the problematic robotic bodies may serve the gender stereotype, they also have the potential to penetrate heteronormativity.
These bodies are replaceable and interchangeable, hence deconstructing our normal assumptions about holistic bodies, that is, a whole organic flesh. The bodies of the humanoid robots queer body norms and thus have the potential to reconceptualize heteronormative norms. Therefore, the bodies of the humanoid robots are both hope and despair. This panel is calling papers discussing gender, bodies, and robots. We hope to evoke sophisticated conversations in order to review and rethink the politics around the bodies of robots.
Does this mean the futures promised by modernity must be pronounced dead? Yes and no. We declare them undead, and ask: how do modern futures linger in the present, casting a shadow on the now? We invite papers that explore how innovations in science and technology get imagined, taken up, and abandoned; how subjectivities get remade, stretched by allegiances to the past and belief in an inevitable future; how certain bodies get written out of visions of the future based on historical and extant prejudices; and how modernity itself gets experienced as multiple, recursive, and contingent.
If we have always already been modern, then how do the ghosts of futures past haunt our uneven present?
Get in touch with our friendly team of experts
A tension between two visions of innovation, one that builds capacity for horizontal public health systems, the other driving high tech vertical technology development, may be impeding global health. Vaccine research and immunization programs might be seen as a sociotechnical assemblage where the public health value of some vaccines is undeniable but their safety, effectiveness and vertical implementation remain wicked problems that divide and prevent progress.
Industry demand for fast tracking vaccine development has increased as governments in high, middle and low countries contribute scarce public resources, often laundered to the private sector, to vaccine development and implementation. The confluence of market forces, financialization and weaponization of vaccines for biosecurity in the guise of global and public health has been demonstrated in pandemic threats from, for example, anthrax, dengue, ebola, HIV, influenza, malaria, meningitis to zika. Vaccine technologies and immunization programs continue to face controversy across sectors, propelled by charges of conflict of interest between Big Pharma, interested research science and states, and regulatory institutions.
Causal relationships between immunization and serious adverse events, along with security concerns and mandatory vaccination introduce different forms of criticism and challenge than in the past.
We invite STS researchers, especially applying ethnographic approaches, to analyze issues of particular and global vaccine innovation and development. What and how we eat is governed in many ways. Politics, regulation, markets, culture, individual and group knowledge, engineering and technology all shape what we eat and how we eat it. Despite the multitude of systems put in place to govern eating, however, bodies, institutions, and materials continually overflow and challenge them.
This panel asks what happens when diverse STS approaches come together to tackle questions about food and food-making? We invite papers that approach these broad questions through the capacious, multivalent theoretical lens of government. We welcome a wide range of topics exploring the modes and scales of governing food, with particular emphasis on knowledge practice and technology. Possible topics include but are not limited to:. Since the end of the s, several researches have pointed to the emergence of new conflicts, either so-called urban violence or conflicts between diverse groups motivated by territorial, socioeconomic, postcolonial, or ethnic issues.
Given this, authorities have gradually sought to diversify partnerships to access new solutions and technologies, composing sociotechnical assemblages capable of sustaining new forms of security governance. However, these same procedures may be considered responsible for the intensification of these same conflicts, increasing violence among the parties.
This panel, then, seeks to problematize issues such as the following: how can approaches between STS and Criminology, Security, Surveillance, or Urban Studies inform understandings of these conflicts? How are private security, police, and military infrastructures, technologies, and other sociotechnical assemblages responsible for intensifying or normalizing violence in these environments? How do public-private assemblages and the introduction of new surveillance, monitoring and investigation technologies reorganize police and military activities?
How do government initiatives propose new socio-technical arrangements for public security and conflict management? We welcome critical perspectives of the relationship between these assemblages, and at the endurance and reproduction of contemporary forms of security and order. Over the past decade, green infrastructure GI , broadly defined as natural, semi-natural and engineered biological features that perform multiple ecosystem services, have emerged as a favored intervention within cities struggling to resolve issues related to stormwater, pollution, and degraded environmental quality.
By mimicking natural functions, GI moves cities away from grey- or strictly engineered techniques of water conveyance. These installations, include, but not limited to, bioswales, pervious pavements, and green roofs, are touted by planners and engineers as the carriers of multiple ecological, health, and social benefits. Yet, as this new planning priority travels, cities grapple with familiar infrastructural quandaries related to maintenance, repair, and civic interruptions that emerge upon the introduction of new socio-spatial technologies.
Additionally, long held professional identities are challenged as the management of stormwater becomes a community, rather than strictly an engineering, concern. This panel, in alliance with the conference theme, looks to explore in what ways GI challenges current disciplinary methodologies of studying infrastructure.
Additionally, we look to understand what elements of inquiry might remain the same. This panel seeks to gather together interdisciplinary perspectives related to green infrastructure. We aim to begin to create a scholarly community of those currently studying GI within STS and related fields to craft new methodologies, raise critiques, find commonality amongst our work. The New Urban Agenda stresses the importance of Public Spaces that are safe, inclusive, and multifunctional to promote social interaction and integration.
Considering the original meaning of technology — the systematic treatment of an art or technique, a method, system, or technique of making or doing — we consider the contested space of the city through the lens of Hi and Low Technologies and how these are employed and deployed in city space for the purposes of co-creation of public spaces; whether or not these actions are playful, provocative, blatant, or unconscious.
This panel invites inquiry into and discussion around such questions as: How do modern technologies, communication devices, gaming platforms, urban screens, or digital media innovate, interrupt, regenerate the traditional meaning of urban environments? How does technology afford and foster the co-creation of public spaces?
The purpose is to enquire technology and city space; technology as a medium to co-create meaning, connection, health, enjoyment, and political acts. To do so, our panel centers on the multiple forms of technology used in city space. Hi-Tech, Low-Tech and Self-Tech are considered as tactics and strategies for the production and consumptions of playful social public spaces. Contemporary human lives are deeply entangled with hormones — sometimes in disturbing, sometimes in enabling ways.
Although hormones have been seminal to our understanding of biology since the beginning of the 20th century, in the contemporary world they also allow an insight into transnational movements and relations. Be it in the form of shared medical technologies and expertise, the travel of pharmaceuticals across boundaries, or the logics of hormonal usage shared online — hormones cross material and imagined borders. In this panel, we employ an interdisciplinary lens to bear on the various ways hormones move human and non-human actors and how, in turn, they are mobilized by them.
How do hormones travel in a globally entangled world and how do they intersect with human and nonhuman lives in various contexts? What mechanisms of control and regulatory measures are employed to contain them? What inequalities does the movement of hormones rely on and produce? And how can we follow hormones and their traces across space and time? We seek papers, that draw on innovative empirical research and make visible various disciplinary and theoretical frameworks to understand the complex, mobile nature of hormones in the everyday.
We are interested in case studies from various parts of the world with a focus on transnational entanglements. Collecting is a fundamental human activity. From early childhood, we curate the flow of objects through our lives, honing skills of discrimination, expression, pleasure and self-fashioning. Grander collections hold sway in the academic and popular imagination: national museums and libraries, archives of governance, and digital data. Nations and empires have their own logics of acquisition: objects are as important as territory in establishing authority over a population.
In the excitement of creation and expansion, it is easy to overlook the constant work required to stave off erosion, failure and loss. In fact, collecting and ending often travel together. Institutional collections are usually intended as an end-point for the objects that fall into their care: further circulation is tightly controlled. But little attention has been paid to how collections themselves end.
Historians have traced the positive achievements of collectors and curators, but we propose an alternative account of collections that have been diminished or are no longer. To pay attention to ending is to pay attention to the shifting fortunes of things, to the labour of their maintenance, and to dispersal as both a negative and positive force. This open panel will collect STS scholarship on the ends of collections. We seek work on collections of all kinds: from scientific instruments, books, skulls, blood, flies, seeds, and DNA, to things that might never have been intended for collection but nevertheless are collected.
They develop their trade and craft skills in conversation with metrics that shadow every task—and possibly every keystroke—and often with little or no say in how data about them is collected, represented, and repurposed on the platform they work. How do metrics and statistics represented on the platform contribute to performances of neoliberal subjectivity? How and where do users try to intervene in the ongoing development of digitally-platformed services?
This panel welcomes ongoing case studies of infrastructural change that in turn shape the transformation of particular sociotechnical ethics. Climate change, perhaps more than any other environmental problem, has brought reflexive attention to the utility and vulnerability of scientific expertise in political and public contexts both within and outside the scientific community. This session invites empirical, theoretical, and thought-provoking papers that analyze such topics as: threats to scientific experts, subversive uses of scientific expertise, scientific expertise and political ideology, changing roles of the scientific expert, diminished authority of scientific expertise, forced or encouraged hybridity within scientific expertise, limits to expertise and their impacts on science, and other topics that fit the session.
Contributions might also reflexively examine how STS research may have altered the forms and authority of scientific expertise on climate change or how STS approaches to scientific expertise may have been altered by the climate change problem. Contributions that examine cross-national differences are also encouraged.
In technoscientific times of huge and increasing inequalities that involve almost all aspects of social life, both within and between countries, questions regarding inequality seem unavoidable to STS scholars, both from an analytical and an ethical standpoint. Specifically, the roles of technoscience in conditioning how inequality is created and augmented, and the possibly novel nature of its impacts on trajectories of innovation and vice versa emerge as central concerns.
STS has a long history of engagement with such issues. Since the early days of the field, the study of controversies e. Nelkin has highlighted the unequal distribution of risks and benefits in the development and implementation of many technologies, contributing to entire new fields of research such as environmental justice. Other topics related to inequality addressed by STS include working conditions, race, access to health, and gender. The study of the production of knowledge has also taken into account the differential status of knowledge according to its origin.
However, in spite of its sustained concern, STS has not developed specific theoretical frameworks on inequality. This panel invites discussion of the possibility and desirability of the development of specific theoretical frameworks on inequality in STS, as well as how contributions from other disciplines can be accommodated. From an empirical perspective, this Panel encourages contributions on cases where this problematic issue is central in different ways.
Common to many social science disciplines, the topic of humour and comedy has received relatively little attention within STS, though there has been increasing acknowledgement that attending to joking and humour offers a powerful lens onto social worlds and practices. As a mode of speech and thought, humour would appear to have the power to disrupt science, as a moment of dis juncture between the serious and the playful, highlighting the incongruous and questioning the taken-for-granted.
Similarly, interest in humour in science communication and public engagement suggests a belief that humour, as a form of communication, might provide the means to engage and enthuse the public, as means to transform the public, though undercut by a concern that science might become laughable. As a nascent topic within STS, the panel encourages submissions from a wide range of perspectives and foci. Papers could consider, for example, case studies of humour within scientific cultures, humour as a topic of discourse, the politics and meta-discourses of humour in relation to science, or humour as a method or methodology of science and STS.
Indigenous knowledges and technologies, i. STS appears to still be in need of a process of decolonisation as to a large extent it is still insensible to knowledges, technologies, practices and epistemologies that have arisen from indigenous people around the globe. Nonetheless, we recognize two main bodies of literature on indigenous knowledges and technologies in current STS. Firstly, work by scholars such as Helen Verran, John Law, Mario Blaser, and Marisol de la Cadena, which is at the intersection between the ontological turn in STS and decolonial or postcolonial studies.
Secondly, work by indigenous scholars, such as Kyle Whyte and Kim TallBear, which have been particularly important in terms of bringing indigenous standpoints to STS. This panel seeks to bring together researchers interested in addressing topics related to indigenous knowledges, technologies and practices in dialogue with the above mentioned literature and other relevant STS theories.
We are interested in works that address although not exclusively a Indigenous knowledges and technologies from a decolonial or postcolonial perspective, b the circulation of Indigenous knowledges inside and outside the indigenous world, c the intersection of Indigenous and Western knowledges and technologies, d the re appropriation of Western technologies by Indigenous peoples, d Indigenous knowledges and technological policymaking, e the indigeneisation of STS.
STS and Anthropology have explored infrastructures empirically, theoretically, and conceptually for several decades now, but what, if anything, comes after infrastructure? The times where the internet was considered a space of flows have certainly come to an end, current developments in Europe make many kinds of borders visible, and there certainly are new obstacles to the sharing of knowledge and exchange of thought.
Even the diversity of infrastructural forms seems to be diminishing, leading to more uniform set of shared interfaces and platforms. Infrastructure studies have focused attention on how people, things and knowledge circulate, and on the transformations that happen as they do. Infrastructure studies have coined invisible work, installed base, ontological experiment and described blockages to flow.
- SAGE Reference - Confections.
- Brushes: A Novel (Stitches Trilogy Book 2);
- Eight Black Hat SEO Techniques That Are Killing Your Rankings.
- The Hidden Teachings of Jesus: The Political Meaning of the Kingdom of God?
- 40 Marriages that must not hold.
- Site Search Navigation.
Thus, infrastructure studies are about circulation, formalization, scaling up and flow as well as transformation and obstacles. As such it is a rich tradition that speaks to a host of empirical fields. But given that almost anything can now count as infrastructure, has the concept lost some of its precision? In this panel we will discuss this question and think about what might be the limits to and enduring potential of the concept of infrastructure to speaks to empirical, theoretical and political challenges of today.
How we might study that which we cannot see, count, or measure? How might we analyze invisibility? This is especially important in the context of injuries — to bodies, to infrastructures, to populations of humans and non-humans — that are either undetectable as with minor strokes or erased as in political attempts to obscure events , and the aftermaths they produce, which can lead to novel connections and regenerations. In this panel, we reflect on the invisible and unknown, and invite presenters to explore other ways of knowing injuries. We aim to move beyond the typical critical social critique of scientific evidence — that is, accusations of marginalized evidence — to consider how we might approach the invisible?
Fantasies, delusions, visions — each is marked by its intimacy and inexpressibility. But might we make them social? We consider other types of evidence, and how novel approaches to evidence might provide ways for articulating anti-epistemologies that destabilize ways of knowing — for scholars as well as our interlocutors. Not simply stating its absence, but asking how we might bring it into focus, make it visible and readable, to include the excluded, as a means to counter what we know, or what think we know, about evidence, interiority, and relationality.
How might we interrupt conventional renderings of the injured? How can we render the unknowable knowable for invisible trauma and damaged states? This open panel brings together scholars studying and participating in innovative forms of air pollution governance. The panel seeks to map the ways in which we can think of these interventions as interrupting or regenerating spaces, practices, and futures in relation to air pollution governance.
We invite proposals for presentations that address many modes, stages and styles of air pollution governance, which we understand to include state and non-state actors, complex knowledge politics, and intricate translational challenges. We are interested in ways science has been produced and used in governance, air pollution monitoring design and mitigation programs, and in the collaborations that produce and sustain these.
We are also interested in the work of environmental activists and journalists, in innovations within city governments, and in legal strategies to address air pollution. Other topics of interest include science-to-policy pathways, new data collection and visualization practices, air pollution education, and environmental in justice. We hope the panel will be deeply transnational, bringing together scholars from different regions, showcasing globally-situated, imaginative ways of engaging with air pollution that pay attention to historical and cultural settings in a world undergoing rapid change.
The panel invites a broad range of reflections on air pollution and its interfaces with late-industrialism. Recent years have seen the rising popularity of digital health technologies for women, advances in reproductive genetics, as well as the proliferation of new forms of assisted reproductive technology ART. Along with innovations, however, come debates about their safety, effectiveness, and broader impact on consumers. In addition, ART has generated complex configurations for family building.
Reproduction has been reshaped to include individuals, couples, and groups previously excluded from biological family building. Scholars have also drawn attention to social inequalities perpetuated through the use of reproductive health innovations, including fertility treatments, novel forms of contraception, genetic testing, and digital health applications. The panel invites submissions from scholars who explore power dynamics as they apply to innovations in reproduction and the reproductive sciences.
More specifically, we are looking for papers that discuss ART, prenatal genetic testing, digital health, and contraception, with a critical eye towards inequalities shaped by gender, class, race, and sexuality. Thematic questions this session will explore: How are emerging integrated technologies shaping human behavior and health in relation to natural and built environments?
How are they shaping social organizations in relation to natural and built environments? RRI, Co-Creation , but increasingly also in the private sector, where the creation of ethics boards and guidelines is becoming paramount for legitimizing the interruptions caused by new knowledge and technologies. Particularly in governance settings whose core rationale has so long been nourished by techno-optimism e. Silicon Valley, Venture Capital, Tech start-ups, the World Economic Forum , the institutionalization of ethical and societal expertise provides new avenues for regenerating visions of progress mediated by socially aligned innovations.
We seek to better understand the cultures, contexts, and institutions that foster the co-production of emerging technologies and normative orders in novel ways, giving rise to new imaginaries of the relationship between innovation and society. The pursuit of innovation is increasingly seen as a central goal of healthcare systems as governments and industry seek to create value from tissues, bodies and personal medical information. How can STS scholars understand and analyse these new discourses of innovation, emerging political economies and novel forms of value creation?
How might we link the development of post-genomic technologies and biomedicine to the emergence of personalised medicine and the entrepreneurial and post-austerity state? This panel seeks to bring together papers on the broader shaping of contemporary biomedicine with work on specific new medical technologies, including studies of pharmaceutical and biotechnological innovation.
This might include research on public policy, firms and industry networks, clinical practices, and governance regimes. Contributions from non-Western countries and the Global South would be particularly welcome. It opens a space for dialogue between experimental and often times messianic technological interventions driven by the global north, and those that have emerged as local solutions to challenges of pedagogy in the context of the higher education sector.
It explores dynamics of power, pragmatism, IP generation, profit, and data control, as well as the emergence of new tools that in some cases explicitly move away from coded platforms. This open panel brings together scholars experimenting with innovative academic infrastructures in the form of digital scholarship and alternative research spaces inside and outside the university. The panel seeks to map novel configurations of knowledge production and distribution through different writing genres, media technologies, data sharing and archiving platforms, funding models, hiring and recruitment processes, publishing initiatives, and collaborative research projects.
We are particularly interested in explorations and interventions that transcend or complicate both intellectual extractivism and the perpetuation of academic peripheries in post-colonial settings. We also welcome papers that critically examine o the creation and reproduction of unequal epistemological geographies or those that explore the increasing use of scholarly metrics for career evaluation and job placement.
We hope to spark an optimist and honest conversation about diverse academic futures in view of the ongoing corporatization and precarization of Higher-Ed in the global North and the longstanding patron-client bureaucratization of academia in the global South. This panel invites both empirical investigations and policy initiatives that allow us to develop transnational and comparative approaches to the study of academic infrastructures and human capacity building.
They promise that embedding diagnostic, therapeutic and other forms of care in digital products like apps, wearables, and robots will enable access to affordable, anywhere, anytime mental health care, untethered from the clinic. We seek papers that show how STS can interpret, evaluate, and contest techno-optimistic visions of digital mental health interventions as a site of innovation. We want to foster a conversation about the politics of translating signs of psychic suffering into bits of data, by addressing questions such as:. We encourage submissions exploring how novel modes of research and representation e.
SF, graphic arts, performance can offer insight into the cultural politics of global digital mental health. Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications ELSI research was initially funded by Congress as part of the Human Genome Project as an attempt to change how genomics research is conducted and informs policy. Applying ELSI to the learning health system framework is an opportunity to address other issues we observe with the current healthcare system and infrastructure.
Learning health systems are organizations or networks that continuously study themselves and adapt using data and analytics to generate knowledge, engage stakeholders, and implement behavior change to transform practice. These networks are continuously engaging with and against the society in which they are embedded. How might feminist, post-colonial, and critical race framings contribute to the futures of consent, algorithmic technology, public engagement, or knowledge production for example? The namesake designer was as mysterious as the reason her purple pandas grabbed an umbrella to protect them from a heart downpour, but for a generation of Trapper Keeper and sticker album addicts, she was our rainbow fix.
We all remember sitting in front of a TV wheeled in by the AV department in ,. The broadcast network footage was only shown after the fact. CNN, then in comparatively few households and schools, was the sole network to carry the launch and explosion live. But almost any Gen X-er can still describe the shape of that cloud from memory because it was replayed so many times: the large white almost cumulonimbus center mass, with the two streamers from the solid rocket boosters flaming off into the sky, the seven passengers no more.
The coolest answering machines had a remote control , and you could call your home from a pay phone and when the machine picked up this remote would go beep boop boop and your answering machine would play back your messages. You could also punch in codes on push-button phones! It was like being Brooding bands like Nirvana and Soundgarden validated the noisy discontent of teenagers everywhere. For me, they looked like a lot like home. Or, counterpoint, you will be totally unsurprised. But yeah, the war on drugs.
How did that go? This was a suddenly exciting and radical time in literature and people read widely and were delighted to find that there were hybrid works of genre, hybrid works of memoir and fiction and nonfiction, that we were beginning to see things like science fiction and graphics creep into mainstream fiction, and also that polemic and politics were finally invading the space that was held by a very small group of people. Radical queer stories were being told for the first time! Independent publishing prospered — at the margins, for a while, at least!
The idea of multiple voices, either as literary conceit or as model for society, finally entered the mainstream and the marketplace. Were you born between and ? So which generation are you spiritually? Take this quiz to find out. Millennials, who came of age with the Sept. Elizabeth Wurtzel and loads of other somethings became citizens of Prozac Nation. At the time, though, the biggest crisis this chemical-smiley-face equivalent posed was one of generational identity: If we children of the s could no longer brand ourselves as sullen, nihilistic Kurt Cobain clones, what in the heck were we? Before YouTube, you too could be on the tube.
All you needed was a janky set and a dream. Public-access TV stars were highly regional devotions. A product of the days when the F. When Miuccia Prada introduced her black nylon Vela in , it caused an accessory rush that has never quite abated. Because, I like my Skechers, but I love my Prada backpack. For more, visit nytimes.
Key Speeches & Articles
Or sign up for our newsletter Wait —. We have something for every generation. Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the year Prozac was introduced. It was , not Please upgrade your browser. The tech, music, style, books, trends, rules, films and pills that made Gen X … so so-so. The Walkman Foreshadowing a digital future. Benetton Uniting causes, sweaters and scarves. Ceci est une ad. Lisa Bonet and Lenny Kravitz A short but productive union.
Getty Images. Keanu Reeves The most soulful stoner bro. TLC The condom as monocle. What about your friends? Long Phone Conversations Your ears were actually burning. You had to stay on the phone for an hour, two hours, to feel the burn. This is the true story of seven strangers … who are now in their 40s and 50s. Caity Weaver lives one week as though it were 25 years ago. Lollapalooza See bands and get a tattoo. Every generation has its music festivals, but. Chokers A sigh in the face of jewelry. CDs Draining the wallets of a generation.
Here lies Laura Palmer. Parliament Lights Remember smoking? Ian MacKaye The man who made straight edge a thing. All Black Everything. John Singleton put black lives on the big screen. The Supermodels They were our ego and our id. Stuff Your Rules. Lisa Frank School supplies or acid trip? Associated Press. Answering Machines Beep boop boop. Men in Baby Doll Dresses For a short time, this was a thing. These Books! Telling certain stories for the first time. Are You Secretly a Millennial?