Log in to star items.
- Convenors:
-
Eleni Kotsira
(Alma Economics)
Dawn Goodwin (Lancaster University)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
- Location:
- C-4, 504
- Sessions:
- Friday 11 September, -
Time zone: Europe/Warsaw
Short Abstract
This panel discusses various examples of risks, crises and catastrophes, unpacking their potential and challenges in leading to reparations or systemic changes in matters such as disaster preparedness, accountability, (in)justice and democracy.
Description
Ulrich Beck has famously argued that “being at risk is the way of being and ruling in the world of modernity; being at global risk is the human condition at the beginning of the twenty-first century” (2014, p. 80). With contemporary risks expected to lead to crisis and catastrophe when unmanaged, and with such crises and catastrophes having global impacts due to the extent of the risks they result from (from climate change to global financial recessions), Beck sees in the condition of the global risk a ‘cosmopolitan moment’ providing the opportunity for coordinated action that goes beyond national interests and socioeconomic differences. However, at the same time, disasters are variously and unequally experienced by different groups, by default the outcome of their preceding – socioeconomic and other – vulnerabilities that pave their exposure to the disaster, or not (Oliver-Smith, 2009).
This panel invites papers that delve into this contrasting potential of risks, crises and catastrophes, outlining how these are perceived and managed by the groups and communities immediately affected, as well as the attempts by various authorities to govern, contain and control them. Such attempts open up broader discussions about disaster preparedness and accountability across authorities and publics, as well as (in)justice and democracy. We are particularly interested in exploring the opportunities and limitations emerging from various examples of risks, crises and catastrophes, and analyse response practices intended to make reparations or support systemic changes.
Accepted papers
Session 1 Friday 11 September, 2026, -Paper short abstract
This paper examines how firefighters make catastrophic wildfires actionable in real time. Drawing on operational briefings from the 2025 Palisades Fire, it shows how responders sustain coordination and decision-making as fires increasingly exceed established paradigms of control.
Paper long abstract
Wildfires are increasingly framed as symptoms of a broader climate crisis whose consequences appear catastrophic yet uncertain. While such risks are often discussed in abstract and global terms, responses must take place in concrete situations where action cannot be postponed. This paper examines how catastrophic wildfires become actionable within the practical work of wildfire response.
I focus on the Palisades Fire, which broke out on January 7, 2025, in the Santa Monica Mountains of Los Angeles County and became the most destructive wildfire in the history of the city. The fire spread rapidly through Pacific Palisades, Topanga, and Malibu, destroying more than 6,800 buildings before being contained on January 31. The scale and intensity of the fire challenged established paradigms of wildfire suppression that are historically oriented toward control and containment.
Empirically, the paper analyzes operational briefings and status reports produced during the firefighting operations between January 7 and January 31. Drawing on an ethnomethodological perspective and STS-inspired practice studies, I reconstruct how responders describe, interpret, and coordinate around the unfolding fire while being directly immersed in its dynamics. Particular attention is paid to how firefighters render the evolving situation intelligible “for all practical purposes” (Garfinkel) while confronting events that increasingly exceed established expectations of controllability.
By examining how catastrophic fires are rendered actionable in real-time coordination practices, the paper contributes to STS discussions about existential risk. It shows how abstract climate-related threats are translated into situated practices of sense-making, coordination, and decision-making during unfolding emergencies.
Paper short abstract
Although the systemic risks of AI are already subject to regulation, there is a lack of understanding their systemic nature, characterised by emergent effects at a societal level, effectively hindering adequate assessments, mitigation measures and governance.
Paper long abstract
The integration of general-purpose AI models into downstream AI systems has given rise to new forms of risks that are more systemic in nature than conventional AI risks. Although these risks gain traction in research and regulation, there are widely varying understandings of them. In the EU AI Act for example, systemic risks can be caused by individual AI providers or users. However, we are already observing systemic risk phenomena arising from complex interactions between different actors or AI systems, threatening societal goals. Yet the ‘systemic nature’ of these phenomena is not adequately addressed by current risk assessments, mitigation measures or governance frameworks.
We propose to investigate systemic risks of AI as arising from complex interactions between system elements (e.g. data and inference transfers), resulting in emergent effects at a societal level, such as the gradual erosion of human rights (e.g. systemic discrimination), democracy, and environmental protection goals. This conceptualisation views systemic risk phenomena through the lens of complex externalities and collective action problems. Of particular interest are feedback dynamics, processes that lead to market concentration like network effects, algorithmic monocultures, and integration processes of AI supply chains or ‘AI ecosystems’ and across societal sectors, which can result in structural dominance, dependencies, and cascading risks. We also outline regulatory deficits and normative ambiguities that hinder effective mitigation efforts. Finally, we discuss how these phenomena of systemic risks interact and accumulate to create future challenges.
Paper short abstract
Developing an STS theorising of public inquiries, I examine the structure and practices of inquiries - exploring issues of epistemic injustice, public participation, and accountability - and track continuities and discontinuities with pasts and presents, and the futures they set in train.
Paper long abstract
Jasonoff (2005:218) famously stated that public inquiries are ‘Britain’s favoured mechanism for ascertaining the facts after any major breakdown or controversy’. Public inquiries are thus emblematic of the UK’s civic epistemology. However, in the 20 years since this foundational work, there has been little theorising of public inquiries from an STS perspective, despite ever increasing public demand for them. In this presentation, I develop an STS theorising of public inquiries, focusing on the space between the claim, by proponents, that inquiries provide catharsis for people harmed by public institutions meant to protect and care for them, and the claim, by critics, that they are a political tool for managing crisis that both distances governments from the scandal while showing decisive action that something is being done. I explore the repair work of inquiries where public institutions have caused harms, and societal breakdowns of trust have occurred. As a critical juncture at which scientific and public knowledges are enfolded to form recommendations for future practice, I examine the structure and practices of inquiries, and explore issues of epistemic injustice, public participation, and accountability. I question the ‘closure’ inquiries are proposed to enact and track the continuities and discontinuities with pasts and presents, and the futures they set in train.
Paper short abstract
Involving disaster survivors in defining the event they experienced is not just a method to collect rich and policy-informing research data, but also a reflective exercise that can empower participants unpack the catastrophic incident and consider their way forward making use of local knowledge.
Paper long abstract
This contribution utilises existing ethnographic data collected in the wake of an environmental disaster on the remote island of Samothráki, N.E. Greece. As part of ethnographic fieldwork, islanders had been asked to complete a short online survey, including selecting a definition for the catastrophic event from a closed-ended list, followed by a few open-ended questions about their personal experience with it (see: https://doi.org/10.22582/ta.v13i2.725). Respondents approached the survey as a reflective exercise and embarked on considering matters beyond the disaster itself, such as the liabilities of the local community and the actions that need to be taken in response, or their concerns about the future on/of the island.
Using this survey design and its key findings as a case study, we will consider how the public can be more actively involved in unpacking and making sense of disasters and risks, whether these feel near and imminent, or afar and abstract. Through a guided exercise, participants will be invited create their own fit-for-purpose reflective tool combining data collection with public engagement, focusing on empowering communities themselves make use of their local knowledge and experience to assess risk factors and determine response scenarios, in a structured way that can then be used to inform decision-making. We will also outline ethical considerations associated with this process and how to avoid research extractivism.