From the perspective of technology users, this raises questions of the changing roles and practices of drivers, ownership of transport data, app-economies, new services, mobility cultures and democracy. In conversation with ongoing queer, disability studies, feminist, and antiracist projects in STS, this open panel seeks to further disrupt interrogations of sexuality, race, gender, and dis ability in the study of science, technology, and medicine by centering deviant objects of analysis and subject-positions: Bad Queers, Bold Crips, and Black Femmes. By the fact of their existence — but also through their intentional deviant practices — Queers, Crips, and Black Femmes disrupt idealized white, able-bodied, masculine, heteronormative, and feminine subject-positions as these are depicted in both popular and medical material.
Rather than an STS that merely accounts for this deviance, we seek to build up an STS that actively celebrates these deviant subjects and their practices of self-making, community-building, and collective resistance to normative regimes of science, technology, and biomedicine. We welcome submission from all disciplines, historical time periods, and encourage methodological promiscuity. STS has a long history of disrupting understandings of bodies, modes of knowledge, and entire disciplines. Operating in that tradition, this panel seeks to put those disruptions into conversation with deviant forms of inquiry and theorizing in queer studies, disability studies, sexuality studies, and Black feminist studies.
How do Queers disrupt the technological and biomedical constructions around sex, sexuality, pain, pleasure, disease, and desire? What happens when Crips embrace biomedical technologies that seek to erase disabled subjects and instead use them to create an imagined Crip future? How do STS scholars and biomedical actors respond when working class Black women who are framed as ill or sick — such as women living with HIV — respond with bold assertions of their health?
Inspired by the deviant milieus of New Orleans, Bourbon Street, and with 4S convening in the shadow of Southern Decadence , we welcome scholars from a wide variety of fields that seek to re define, appropriate, and revel in deviance through one or more critical STS lenses.
We welcome traditional paper submissions and contributions in other formats or modalities. Scholarship in postcolonial STS and critical data studies critiques the widespread use of data-driven systems, pointing to the racialized, gendered, and socioeconomic consequences embedded in their production and use, and the troubled histories from which such apparatuses arise Borocas and Selbst ; Browne ; Crawford and boyd ; Noble ; Suchman This research has productively demonstrated that data technologies are not neutral, but instead are socially, culturally, and politically situated ways of knowing and seeing Browne ; Gitelman ; Jasanoff ; Thakor And, how these systems work outside of the West is largely unattended to.
How do they derive value in data and data-driven techniques? Through empirical analysis, this panel digs beneath macro trends and rhetoric to query the lived experiences of working through these burgeoning data systems. This panel explores the influential landscape of practices of personal change and radical self-transformation.
Practices and techniques for self-improvement are part of encounters and ways of operating in healthcare, education, professional development, life coaching, therapy, spiritual practice, movements like the quantified self, etc. We wish to move away from such an analytical cul-de-sac and craft stories that do not hinge on unilateral critique or explanatory frameworks. This panel calls for scholarship on non-use and media refusal to examine how ubiquitous technology becomes infastrucutral, and the increasing difficulty of avoiding adoption.
Yet interruptions in patterns of use and changes in user behaviors emerge, as we negotiate our relationships with media and technology in context-specific studies. How do we consider what it is to be a non-user when innovation is rapidly the conditions of possibility for living in a technified society? This panel hopes to address that question. Scholarship on non-use is welcome to examine the issues surrounding innovation, interruptions, dis engagement and dis empowerment.
When we are compelled to participate in media and technology via innovation, how do we measure the exchange of agency, as ways of being in society become technified, commercialized and standardized on new platforms? What is the interuption to older ways of being and historic social infastructure? What is the relationship between dis engagements and dis empowerment? Case studies, theoretical works, and new perspectives are especially welcome as we try and continue the necessary conversation around non-use. Technology in disability studies is often seen as the trojan horse of ableism.
In STS, for all the considerations of the posthuman, critical conceptualizations of disability remain rare. The research, then, emerging from these fields has largely run in parallel, with few or fleeting intersections. If the conceptual and political points of reference in these fields are characterized largely by disjunctions, the same cannot be said for their subjects of interest. From studies of biomedical technologies such as pharmaceutical and bionic devices to studies of the senses and ways of being in the world, the subjects and objects of concern in critical disability studies and STS overlap significantly.
This panel will bring together a set of researchers working at the emerging intersection of these fields to converse within and across the existing tensions. Moving beyond the limits of concepts such as therapeutic normalisation and technological enhancement, we will dwell on the way technologies are productive of, and mediate, difference.
We will consider how the everyday use of biomedical technologies can sometimes work against normative logics of cure that govern their production allowing people instead to reshape, rather than remove, difference and disability. What might a uniquely Black feminist approach to the study of health, science, and technology offer to the field of STS as a whole?
As an emergent lens and field, BFHSS is built on existing and growing research that demands a multi-pronged approach to ameliorating the health disparities of Black people. This panel will bring together scholars invested in the project of imagining a future for STS which takes seriously the contributions of Black feminist engagements with science, technology, health, and medicine. We invite ethnographic work, textual engagements, artistic performance, and any synthesis of these and other modalities to ask what might be possible.
What kinds of interruptions, interruptions, and regenerations might a black feminist framework afford the study and experience of health across time and space? Science studies scholars have long tracked the variety of political and epistemic projects either conducted by or enrolling lay people to enact science.
- Economic Integration in South Asia: Issues and Pathways.
- Study-Unit Description;
- Dancing With Interactive Space · Contemporary Arts and Cultures.
- Let Love In: Open Your Heart and Mind to Attract Your Ideal Partner.
- Dance/NYC 2017 Symposium.
- BOOK SERIES.
- Ubuy Kuwait Online Shopping For m-1 in Affordable Prices.?
Whether it is scientists crowdsourcing data or activists questioning corporate or state research agendas, experimental methods, or the ends of research, citizen science encompasses the participatory production of scientific knowledge within and without institutionalized boundaries. As such, tracking the openings and foreclosures of citizen science has brought attention to the instrumental rationality and cultural authority of science underpinning both policy justification and public accountability, particularly in liberal democratic contexts.
In this panel, we seek to expand this conversation by examining the political possibilities of technoscientific engagement that is enabled through bureaucratic interventions rather than the lingua franca of science in multiple political contexts across the world.
How might we examine social movements that must demonstrate bureaucratic literacy in order to challenge the boundaries and ends of technological and biomedical projects? Even in the United States, activists must develop bureaucratic literacy to negotiate the procedural hurdles of ethics committees and regulatory agencies to challenge therapeutic applications for marijuana and psychedelics. In many countries, citizen science has gained public policy support in recent years, often touted for expanding scientific literacy, producing useful scientific data, and spurring innovation.
At the same time, a growing number of scholars are highlighting how citizen science can contribute to progressive social change, bringing attention to social movement activists, union organizers, and scientists who are using citizen science to argue for better protection of the environment and human health. Papers in this session will probe questions such as: How is citizen science and public policy co-produced?
Dance/NYC 2017 Symposium
How are neoliberal policies implicated in the advancement of citizen science? What are the implications when citizen scientists choose to align or not their data and methods with existing regulatory standards? How is the field of citizen science governed? How do citizen science practices encourage or inhibit politicized actions by volunteers?
In alignment with the conference theme of innovation, this session also explores how citizen science helps innovation in regulatory science, advocacy strategies, legal arguments, and government policies.
The Error Network
Classics might be papers recognized as such. Or, they might be papers that are not part of standard narratives of the field but should be incorporated or re-incorporated into these narratives—recognizing that while narratives can celebrate the collective and cumulative nature of scholarship, they can also marginalize or exclude.
In remembering earlier moments in STS, we ask presenters to explore how those moments can be usefully or interestingly recalled today. We hope that presenters will not only engage with their chosen paper, but will also devote some of their time to freshly delivering parts of it. Such re-enactments might commemorate the contributions of particular scholars, or be performances intended to trouble existing categories or narratives in STS.
By engaging with past scholarship through re-enactment rather than citation alone, we aim to foreground the performative aspects of citational practices, making clear how the meaning of a classic paper shifts as it is read aloud by a different speaker, in a different venue, in a different historical moment. We invite papers that address the following questions, among others:. The privatization of public knowledge has become endemic to 21st century times.
From corporate battles over drug patents to seed wars, knowledge produced in many forms, sites, spaces, and communities is increasingly enclosed — that is, separated from its knowledge-makers and commodified for the accumulation of capital. Science and technology are at once driving and experiencing the effects of many contemporary enclosures. We welcome papers that explore the multiple dimensions of both knowledge commons and how knowledge is being used to create or support all varieties of commons. Some potential topics include: What are the potential contributions of commons to helping regenerate and democratize the everyday practice of science and technology?
How does knowledge-making enable and sustain the formation of commons, and whose knowledge matters? What sorts of knowledge are produced within commons, and how might these play a role in the identity and governance of commons? How might new technologies update and reinvigorate commons practices?
Invisible Connections: Dance, Choreography and Internet Communities (Innovations in Art and Design)
How might it disrupt them? The importance of social innovation has increased because it represents an alternative to the conventional top-down assistance approach of some governments to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. Unlike such an approach, social innovation implies the active participation of society in the solution of its own problems. That is to say, we understand social innovation as the intentional change of social practices aimed at the solution of collective problems, through the active participation of a community.
In other words, social innovation means social change, especially that intentional change of social practices. Despite its known relevance and conceptualization, several authors point out that social innovation still lacks a coherent theoretical structure and that more empirical research is necessary to understand and promote it. In response to this concern, through this panel we invite STS scholars to join a conceptual discussion on social innovation, helping to define its actors, conditions, potentials and possibilities. Likewise, an additional purpose of the panel is to present results of empirical investigations that show evidence of social innovation processes of particular cases.
If the progress of nations requires not only technological innovation, but also social innovation, those who study innovation within the field of STS are the ones indicated to provide a better conceptualization on innovation, involving both concepts in processes that affect the welfare and sustainability of our societies. Meanwhile, given the urgency of climate change, many other practitioners argue that closed systems present an inevitable path for future food production.
MoMA | Glossary of Art Terms
This panel invites papers that explore the complex human-plant-technology-economy relations that are emerging across a variety of settings. We seek contributions that critically interrogate how plant science and innovation in growth systems work together, and how they in turn co-constitute new plant epistemologies, moral economies, forms of care, and broader human-plant relations, among other possible topics. The influence of corporate interests — most notably from the cigarette, chemical, pharmaceutical, and food industries — on science and on health and environmental regulation has attracted a growing media and public attention.
STS research has explored this issue in different ways, for example through the analysis of the impact of industry-funding on scientific publications, the study of corporate-biases in the production regulatory standards, or more broadly by questioning the commercialization of science. This panel wants to bring together researchers taking on board the question of corporate influence on science and public regulation, and proposes to do so by following three lines of research: 1 first, by opening up a discussion on the notions and theoretical frameworks used to analyze industry or business influence including, but not limited to: regulatory capture, conflict of interest, bias, production of ignorance, hegemony ; 2 second, by studying the social mechanisms it involves for instance, funding strategies, revolving-door dynamics, ghostwriting, lobbying, or threats and retaliations ; 3 third, by analyzing production of policies aiming at controlling corporate influence, and the social mobilizations it triggers.
More generally, the panel aims at helping the development of inter-sectoral and international comparison, and consequently welcomes papers that analyze the aforementioned corporate strategies in various industrial sectors and in various geographical areas of the global North and South.
Resistance to dominant modes of thinking, knowing, and doing can take a variety of forms— and often results in the production of new epistemological communities of practice. The counter-hegemonic epistemologies of conspiracy theorists, self-experimenters, citizen scientists, marginalized and oppressed communities, and members of many other knowledge domains frequently embody narratives and ways of knowing that run against the dominant paradigms of their social and historical contexts. In many cases, critical or disruptive epistemologies are met by those in power with skepticism and even fear.
This open panel calls for case studies addressing counter-hegemonic epistemologies in the fields of history of science and technology, as well as STS, information studies, education, media studies, and other relevant disciplines.
We are particularly interested in research that brings a comparative historical perspective to bear on the continuously contested nature of dominant knowledge systems. Some points to consider could be: how have specific counter-narratives affected the dominant discourses in the fields that they challenge? Alternatively, how do dominant discourses overpower counter-hegemonic epistemologies? What kinds of contexts does this happen in, and what are the social, political, and historical implications of such contestation?
We welcome submissions that address communities including but not limited to alternative education, decolonial science and technology, clandestine chemistry, whistleblowing, harm reduction, and radical politics. By bringing such disparate ways of knowing into contact, our panel aims to build towards a robust account of the innovation and contestation that prevail among counter-hegemonic epistemological communities.