Send message to Author

Short abstract:

Using the example of a case study into data-driven carceral technologies, this paper highlights the affective negotiations of power and identity that can occur when student researchers engage in the politics of the research site to contribute STS perspectives and share research results.

Long abstract:

The conference theme asks how we, as researchers, can contribute to social transformations through mobilising STS sensibilities. This can cause tensions when the sites of these transformations are also those maintaining inequalities and injustice. In this paper, I outline how messy and affective negotiations of power and identity can influence research, its reception, and its effects. I draw on experiences from my research on data-driven carceral technologies produced through the academic-industrial complex. Through analysing Freedom of Information Requests, I identified details that suggested people in hospitals were exposed to potentially harmful situations due to these technologies.

During the aftermath of this research, through actively engaging in the situation, I became entangled in the politics of the institutions I had studied. Discovering and reporting a data breach, collaborating with campaigners, and sharing research with other academics led to me assuming the identities of not only ‘researcher’ but also those of ‘activist’ and ‘consultant’. These identities were sometimes strategically chosen, but at other times assigned, to myself and others who were attempting to question the power structures that validated the use of these technologies. Consequently, our ability to ‘mobilise’ STS perspectives on scientific knowledge, technology development and use, can become intimidatingly dependent on negotiating the same dynamics that our work critiques.

This demonstrates the need for a critical and collaborative discussion about how we, as researchers but particularly as students, can safely and carefully intervene with findings that have ethical implications and should be actioned before publication is feasible.

Send message to Author

Short abstract:

This study uses event ethnography as an alternative to lab ethnographies to conduct field observations of three Canadian science conferences. The study finds that these spaces highlight some of the power dynamics which cause barriers to marginalized communities contributing to scientific discourses.

Long abstract:

There has been a long history of barriers and challenges related to the exploration of the natural sciences through a social lens. While these challenges are generally related to issues such as the resistance to seeing the sciences as something other than objective, the barriers are even greater when attempting to understand the ways in which power structures such as racism, whiteness, and epistemic oppression are embedded in the sciences. However, shifts in the social studies of sciences (STS) - including those which arose due to the pandemic - highlight alternative ways to understand science, as science can also be ‘performed’ outside of the lab. In order to understand issues such as racism, whiteness, and epistemic oppression in the natural and social sciences, this study used event ethnography to observe three disciplinary conferences in Canada, in the neurosciences, geosciences, and political science, respectively. This study finds several power structures that can particularly implicate marginalized communities of scholars’ abilities to contribute to scientific discourse in a space where science is ‘performed’. These barriers include the kinship between supervisors and their supervisees, varying access to spaces and places, and conferences associations’ commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI).

Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

By showing how different social groups use knowledge of algorithmic bias to highlight problems and propose solutions that align with their political ends and values, we provide a way to assess how solutions to algorithmic bias can both challenge and reinforce existing power structures.

Long abstract:

This paper presents a critical, qualitative study of the social role of algorithmic bias in the context of the Chicago crime prediction algorithm, a predictive policing tool that forecasts when and where in the city crime is most likely to occur. Through interviews with 18 Chicago-area community organizations, academic researchers, and public sector actors, we show that stakeholders from different groups articulate diverse problem diagnoses of the tool’s algorithmic bias, strategically using it as evidence to advance criminal justice interventions that align with stakeholders' positionality and political ends. Drawing inspiration from Catherine D'Ignazio’s taxonomy of "refusing and using" data, we find that stakeholders use evidence of algorithmic bias to reform the policies around police patrol allocation; reject algorithm-based policing interventions; reframe crime as a structural rather than interpersonal problem; reveal data on authority figures in an effort to subvert their power; repair and heal families and communities; and, in the case of more powerful actors, to reaffirm their own authority or existing power structures. We identify the implicit assumptions and scope of these varied uses of algorithmic bias as evidence, showing that they require different (and sometimes conflicting) values about policing and crime. This divergence reflects long-standing tensions in the criminal justice reform landscape between the values of liberation and healing often centered by communities impacted by incarceration and the values of surveillance and deterrence often instantiated in data-driven reform measures. We conclude by reflecting on the possibility of using algorithmic bias as evidence to challenge the status quo.

Send message to Author

Short abstract:

This paper presents the strategies of incumbent single-use and takeaway industry that target areas of scientific evidence production for policymaking. It explores the revision process of the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation from a power perspective.

Long abstract:

Transitions to the circular economy in Europe have not gained acceleration despite two action plans and being a priority of the Green Deal. One major reason behind the slow uptake is the active resistance by incumbent actors. This article explores the case of Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation to uncover resistance and capture strategies of incumbent single-use and takeaway industry actors that succeeded in reducing the political ambition of the policy. Building on lobbying databases, and document and media analysis, the article zooms in on a particular set of strategies in which these actors used the legitimacy of science to maintain their influence. It shows how they created doubts about the evidence base and produced their own scientific messaging to feed into the proposed policy; presents the ways they legitimised their role as scientific stakeholders to dominate institutional settings; and examines the approach they took to align their interests with the expectations of the policymakers. It analyses these strategies from a power perspective not only to report on the impact on the policy outcome but also to engage with a discussion on the political, discursive, and institutional mechanisms that reinforce deep-rooted patterns of incumbency.

Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

In a survey, we investigated how modellers perceive their role in creating energy and climate scenarios. Based on our findings, this input will discuss who truly has the power to shape the knowledge that is fed into policymaking processes, especially in North-South cooperation projects.

Long abstract:

Computer-based models are widely used to guide decisions in energy and climate policymaking. Different experts and organisations develop various modelling frameworks to generate scenarios – often in collaboration with other actors, in highly international and interdisciplinary projects, and in a politically charged environment. In doing so, modellers have substantial flexibility in configuring complex models based on their understanding of the world – which significantly shapes the resulting scenarios. This raises the question of who is responsible for critical assumptions, for value-laden narratives, and for meaningful scenario use in informing political decisions: whose power makes the knowledge?

So far, the model-policy interface remains largely underexplored. To get a better understanding of how modellers perceive their role in the design of models and scenarios, we conducted an online survey in November and December 2023. Informed by principal-agent theory and research on epistemic beliefs, the questionnaire covered aspects such as the information asymmetry between modellers and decision-makers, and the division of responsibility for different aspects of the modelling process between the two. Over 160 respondents from all continents and different disciplines participated.

In the presentation, we will share the main survey results and illustrate how modellers from different backgrounds perceive their role in the modelling process. Based on these insights, we will discuss implications for science-informed energy and climate policymaking, especially in international cooperation between the Global North and the Global South. Finally, we will make suggestions for increasing transparency and accountability at the model-policy interface and propose entry points for further research.

Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

Scandals on scientific misconduct and research where scientific results or agenda-setting are abused for non-academic interests still occur frequently. We illustrate how covert dimensions of power are essential in facilitating mechanisms using Lukes’ three-dimensional power model and 3 case studies.

Long abstract:

Scandals on scientific misconduct and research where scientific results or agenda-setting are abused for non-academic interests, still occur frequently. Recommendations formulated in the aftermath of such scandals often include calls for more responsible science or innovation, particularly when there are societal and environmental impacts. Nevertheless, without addressing the mechanisms that allowed forms of deliberate and indeliberate secrecy to result in these scandals, this will not prevent similar incidents or irresponsible decision-making imprimis.

Several mechanisms that allow for misuse are deeply rooted in our socio-technical systems and agenda-setting for policy and regulation. The system’s social structures and institutions that contribute to the development of trust can paradoxically corrupt systems and induce deviant decision-making. These structures can be abused to engineer uncertainty or avert transparency. Additionally, scientific scandals often involve incubation periods where deviant behaviour becomes gradually accepted or essential warning signals are ignored. Hidden signals are an essential element of scientific scandals when it is revealed that transparency was intentionally jeopardized.

In this article, we describe how covert dimensions of power are essential in different scandal facilitation mechanisms, by adapting Lukes’ three-dimensional power model. We illustrate how scientific scandals are characterized by combinations of visible and hidden power structures. We will discuss mechanisms involved in the (i) opioid Oxycontin scandal , (ii) transparency issues in published coronavirus research, (iii) forms of secrecy and lobbying related to PFAS in the US and Europe, and (iv) lack of disclosure in case of the B737MAX crashes.

Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

Pluralising knowledge within agricultural development requires examining power relations and institutional barriers to knowledge exchanges and farmer agency. We explore agricultural practices between farmers in Forikrom, Ghana, to determine how knowledge plurality is shaped through negotiation.

Long abstract:

In a move for more decolonial approaches to research and development, the importance of a pluriversal approach, one that is inclusive of vastly differing ontologies, epistemologies and knowledges, cannot be overstated. What this looks like in practice, is a debate that is also held within the field of agriculture and food, where there is a need to align existing food systems with the needs and knowledge of local communities (i.e. epistemic justice). An empirical case within the transition zone of Ghana, where different ecologies and social groups meet, is described: the community of Forikrom. In this predominantly yam-farming community, migrant farmers and farmers from Forikrom come into contact with each other and other stakeholders. Migrant farmers are farmers who travel within the borders of Ghana, often from more Northern regions towards Forikrom and further South in the country. The differing social power of these groups is studied, along with possible effects on knowledge politics and processes of knowledge negotiation. In this research using critical ethnography, 22 semi-structured interviews were conducted, along with participant observation during farm visits and one workshop with interviewees. Preliminary findings point to a differential in power and influence on agricultural knowledge creation and knowledge exchanges for migrant farmers. Social dynamics (e.g. potential stereotypes and peer pressure) and institutional barriers (e.g. land tenure) are important when it comes to which knowledge is put into practice in this case. We conclude by providing some insights into creating more just environments for pluralising knowledge.

Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

Stakeholder involvement in long-term energy technology forecasting is vital for robust and accepted projections of the future. We want to investigate empirical examples for different perspectives and approaches to enhance the sustainable strategies for a complex future.

Long abstract:

While simulation models have been of great interest to STS for decades, studies that open energy modeling are sparse. We want to examine front-end input data for energy systems models, which often remain hidden in public debates (though often publicly available).

These data impact energy planning and environmental policies, as technologies with forecasted high costs may never be implemented. In this fashion, the input impacts the outputs of energy systems models and these models, play a vital role in the formulation of policies and our overarching vision of the future.

In this paper, we turn the inquiry into the publicness and public character of this input data. Which publics are and are not involved? why are they allowed or required to participate? and how does knowledge flow between the publics involved and the involvers?

Little literature surrounds this area. Our investigative literature review draws on interdisciplinary literature, from management science to engineering, and in addition to STS includes literature surrounding data generation for either policy-design, scenario-planning or system modelling.

Through the research question “Which methods, systems or approaches are applied, and why, when forecasting data of energy technologies?”, we aim to highlight thoughtful consideration when involving stakeholders when creating these data inputs. We aim to discuss the dynamics of public engagement, the reliance on stakeholder input, and critical reflections on power and inequalities in decision-making. We aim to offer insights that can refine the accuracy and robustness of energy system models and, the environmental, social end economic policies they shape.

Send message to Author

Short abstract:

This study explores how EO tools shape power dynamics in fighting illegal gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. It challenges assumptions of technology-induced knowledge neutrality, emphasizing the nuanced role of geospatial technologies in environmental governance.

Long abstract:

Illegal gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon poses significant environmental and social challenges, prompting the adoption of cutting-edge tools like Earth Observation (EO) technology as a mean of governance. However, the prevailing assumption that these tools inherently empower the weaks and hold the powerful accountable requires closer investigation. Drawing on insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Sociology of Knowledge, this study delves into the intricate relationship between knowledge production through EO tools and power dynamics in the context of the fight against illegal gold mining.

By scrutinizing the materialities of EO tools and the socio-political context shaping knowledge production, we uncover the nuanced interplay between knowledge and power. Through an Access Theory lens, we analyze how EO tools influence power structures, considering both local specificities and international agendas. Our findings challenge the narrative of geospatial technologies as neutral and objective forces for empowerment, highlighting their role in shaping governance structures and redistributing power.

This study sheds light on the agency of EO tools in reshaping environmental governance, particularly in the fight against illegal gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. By untangling the connections between technology, knowledge and power, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the implications of adopting geospatial technologies for power dynamics and underscores the need for nuanced approaches in technology-driven environmental solutions.

Send message to Author

Short abstract:

This paper explores what kinds of power relations operate in transdisciplinary oceans projects, and in what ways they enable and constrain transformative research practices.

Long abstract:

The principle of knowledge co-production has been introduced in international research programmes to make global environmental change research useful and impactful. However, it has been shown that knowledge co-production often fails to grapple with the differentials of knowledge and power. In response to a gap we identify in the understanding of transformative research in marine settings, this paper aims to find out what kinds of power relations operate in transdisciplinary oceans projects, and in what ways they enable and constrain transformative research practices. The paper analyses six projects within the Belmont Collaborative Research Actions Oceans Program, representing experiences of marine transdisciplinary sustainability research practices. We examine how power dynamics influence the ways in which researchers work with various societal actors to envision and bring about social change in the complex relationship between linear and co-production models of knowledge-action. We conclude that the predominant form of power operating within the co-production model of research was the centred (power with) form, geared towards social change seen as empowerment of marginalised communities. The linear model was mostly affected by diffused forms of power, reflecting linear assumptions about knowledge and governance. In both cases the projects were enabled and constrained by structural forms of power within which research is embedded. This points to the need for greater reflexivity among researchers engaging in transdisciplinary work in marine and coastal governance, remaining critical to the interaction between models of knowledge-action connections, power relationships at knowledge-governance interfaces and their potential for envisioning and enacting social change.