CFP_Social studies of energy and the making and unmaking of energy resources

[En el contexto del proyecto DYNPROB estamos organizando esta conferencia que quizás podrás ser de interés]

Social studies of energy and the making and unmaking of energy resources

Date: October 30^th and 31^st 2024, welcoming reception October 29^th

Venue: National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen

Submission: abstracts max. 300 words, March 31^st, notification of acceptance April 15^th, full papers October 1^st . For abstract submission and queries please write to Ask Greve Johansen agj@plan.aau.dk.

Keynote speakers:

• Kristin Asdal, Professor, TIK Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo
• Gavin Bridge, Professor, Department of Geography, Durham University
• Gisa Weszkalnys, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, The London School of Economics and Political Science

Organizing committee: Peter Karnøe (Professor, Department of Sustainability and Planning, Aalborg University), Jens Iuel-Stissing (Associate Professor, Department of Sustainability and Planning, Aalborg University), Ask Greve Johansen (Postdoc, Department of Sustainability and Planning, Aalborg University), José Ossandón (Associate Professor, Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School).

Fees: the conference (and conference dinner) will be free of charge for participants, but participants must cover their accommodation and traveling expenses.

Funding: this conference is conducted and financed in the context of the study “Green transition through dynamics of problematizations: How forms of expertise influence the financial and social valuation of energy resources in Denmark” funded by the Independent Research Fund, Denmark. Research team: Peter Karnøe (PI, Aalborg University), Susse Georg (Aalborg University), Ask Greve Johansen (Aalborg University), Peter Holm Jacobsen (Copenhagen Business School), Julia Kirch Kirkegaard (Technical University of Denmark), Troels Krarup (Aalborg University), José Ossandón (Copenhagen Business School), Trine Pallesen (Copenhagen Business School), Inge Røpke (Aalborg University), Jens Iuel-Stissing (Aalborg University), Emil Urhammer (Aalborg University).

Call for papers. Social studies of energy and the making and unmaking of energy resources

With the risk of climate catastrophe, energy has rightly become one of the most crucial global matters of collective concern. This, of course, has provoked vast amounts of research, not least from the growing body of literature known as social studies of energy.

Social studies of energy have, in the past, rehearsed diverse analytical angles and empirical objects from where to anchor their research (Ariztía et al 2017): some have focused on large infrastructures and socio-technical systems (i.e. Hughes 1983), others on the government of transition pathways (i.e. Verbong & Geels 2007), socio-environmental controversies (e.g. McAdam et al 2010), or practices (i.e. Shove & Walker 2014).

News Valuation Studies

In 2020, Valuation Studies initiated a new phase. As explained in our website, https://valuationstudies.liu.se/Theme_Calls, “the overall aim of this new phase is to strengthen Valuation Studies as a platform for curated academic conversations on valuation. In order to achieve this goal, we have introduced an important shift in how we manage submissions. New submissions will need to be in relation to an open Theme Call. The purpose of this change is to foster a more focused discussion around particular issues of valuation”.

This message is to announce two new open Theme Calls and the publication of a full themed issue.

The two new open Theme Calls are:

• Theme Call: Valuing Energy: unpacking value in energy resources, technologies and processes. Editors: Tomas Ariztia (Universidad Diego Portales), Béatrice Cointe (Mines Paris-PSL and CNRS), Trine Pallesen (Copenhagen Business School), and Antti Silvast (LUT University). Full call here: https://valuationstudies.liu.se/energy_as_a_valuation_problem

• Theme Call: Comparing, Categorizing, Valuating: Entangled Modes of Ordering. Editors: Editors: Thomas Müller (Bielefeld University), Leopold Ringel (Bielefeld University), Elisa Ronzheimer (Elisa Ronzheimer), Jørgen Sneis (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). Full call here: https://valuationstudies.liu.se/Comparing_categorizing_valuating

The last published issue is:

• Theme Issue. Valuation as a Semiotic, Narrative, and Dramaturgical Problem. Vol. 10 No. 1 (2023). Edited by Fabian Muniesa (Mines Paris) and José Ossandón (Copenhagen Business School) https://valuationstudies.liu.se/issue/view/427
  • Valuation as a Semiotic, Narrative, and Dramaturgical Problem. Fabian Muniesa, José Ossandón
  • The Semiosis of Stock Market Indices: Taking Charles Sanders Peirce to a Trading Room. Tom Duterme
  • “What is Design Worth?” Narrating the Assetization of Design. Ulises Navarro Aguiar
  • The Emergence of the Academic Candidate: Evaluation as textual dramaturgy. Julian Hamann, Kathia Serrano Velarde
  • Interpellating Finance – a dramaturgical model for green bond pricing. Alessandro Maresca, Giulia Dal Maso, Aneil Tripathy
  • Performing Nature’s Valuation: The art of natural capital accounting. Sylvain Maechler, Valérie Boisvert
  • Valuation through Narrative Intelligibility. Patrycja Kaszynska
  • Design and the Polysemy of Value: On a problem within the language of valuation studies. Johannes Coughlan

We would be very grateful if you could distribute this message to those you think might find it relevant

Thanks in advance and best regards

José Ossandón & Trine Pallesen, editors Valuation Studies

Algorithmic market design as provocation for STS studies of the market _ EASST-4S 2024 Amsterdam

[Este panel de la conferencia de EASST-4S 2024 en Amsterdam quizás sea de interés].

Algorithmic market design as provocation for STS studies of the market 

Short Abstract:

This panel calls STS work inspecting algorithmic market design. We welcome papers (1) covering the history of algorithmic market design; (2) covering the work of market-designers; and (3) reflecting on how algorithmic market design pushes STS to new and problematic collaborative practices.

Convenors:

Edward Nik-Khah (Roanoke College)
Gabriel Chouhy (Universidad Central Chile)
José Ossandón (Copenhagen Business School)
Trine Pallesen (Copenhagen Business School)
Christian Frankel (Copenhagen Business School)
Daniel Breslau (Virginia Tech)

Long Abstract:

While the bidding mechanisms for advertisement slots at Facebook and Google come most readily to mind, algorithmic market design orchestrates far more aspects of online platforms. Wherever platform companies deploy matching mechanisms (viz., Airbnb, Uber and eBay), we can find the work of market designers. As work in the social studies of finance have shown, trading in contemporary finance is usually mediated by engineered algorithmic market encounters as well. Similarly, large infrastructures for public goods (e.g., electricity, water, emission certificates) are managed by engineered markets mechanisms. Finally, algorithmic market design is becoming increasingly relevant for the reorganization of marketized areas of policy making (e.g., school matching). This panel takes as its starting point that (1) algorithmic market design is an essential component of critical infrastructures for the digital economy, (2) it consolidates a new expertise in engineering and repairing markets, (3) this expertise represents a basic transformation in how professional economists and computer scientists understand themselves vis-à-vis the market, and (4) that algorithmic market design provokes and challenges how STS have usually understood their own conceptualization and practices vis-à-vis economics knowledge. We welcome contributions addressing the following topics:

· Historical papers covering developments – such as mechanism design, matching markets, the design of auction experiments – that might contribute to our understanding of the history of algorithmic market design;

· Work covering the work of market-designers in different economic areas and countries across the globe, for example, studies of designers of platforms, financial exchanges, energy markets, school-choice mechanisms, and kidney exchange;

· Papers that inspect and reflect on how algorithmic market design provokes consolidated understandings of the market in STS (e.g., performativity approach) and how it might trigger new problematic forms of collaborative practice.

A Sociology of finance after the Social Studies of Finance?

[El último número de la revista Sociológica (acá) incluye un simposio sobre el libro Taking the Floor de Daniel Beunza. Contribuyen Donald MacKenzie, Katherine K. Chen, José Ossandón y el mismísimo Daniel Beunza. El número incluye además un debate sobre el proceso de revisión académica con muy ilustres autores y autoras y una entrevista que le hizo Daniel Hirschman a Margaret Somers]

Extensión del plazo para postular a beca de tesis de pregrado y magister

Les solicito me ayuden a circular esta invitación a postular a dos becas para la realización de tesis de pregrado y postgrado. Hemos extendido el plazo para la misma, con el fin de recibir más postulaciones. Es importante notar que la tesis debe ser realizada durante el año 2019. Cualquiera de los investigadores del Fondecyt pueden ser guía o co-guia de la misma. Saludos,

Juan Felipe Espinosa C.

————O———–

Llamado a concurso para tesistas en proyecto Fondecyt Año 2019

El proyecto Fondecyt N° 1190543  titulado “Doing Laboratory Studies in Chile: Re-engaging Science in the Making” dirigido por el Dr. Juan Felipe Espinosa Cristia y co-dirigido por el  Dr. Javier Hernandez, busca dos tesistas interesadas(os) en realizar su tesis de pregrado y/o magister en el campo de la Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad. El proyecto intenta comprender las prácticas de producción científica chilena en tres laboratorios ubicados en las regiones de Valparaíso y Santiago. El proyecto construye sus hipótesis de trabajo a partir de la revisión de la literatura anterior, misma que permite dar sentido a los datos que se obtengan en el futuro trabajo de campo etnometodológico. El proyecto trabajará con las siguientes hipótesis de trabajo:

Presentación del libro “Tecnopolíticas: Aproximaciones a los estudios de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad de Chile”

Martes 26 de marzo, 18:00 hrs. Almirante Barroso 10, Metro Los Héroes, Sala A11. Ediciones UAH y el Magíster en Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad del Departamento de Sociología, invitan a la presentación del libro Tecnopolíticas: Aproximaciones a los estudios de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad de Chile.

La presentación contará con la participación de Felipe Raglianti, investigador postdoctoral, Universodad de Chile; y los autores del libro Ignacio Farías, profesor, Instituto de Etnología Europea, Universidad de Humboldt, Alemania; Gloria Baigorrotegui, académica del Instituto de Estudios Avanzados, USACH y Jorge Castillo Sepúlveda, académico de la Escuela de Psicología, USACH, quienes conformarán un panel de discusión en torno a los temas abordados en el texto. El libro presenta la investigación de diversos académicos y académicas chilenas que han realizado aportes sustantivos a este campo de estudios transdisciplinar, tanto en Chile como en el extranjero. Estos trabajos cubren una amplia diversidad en temas, desde el estudio de la innovación y el consumo a la gestión de desastres, conflictos ambientales, la salud y políticas públicas familiares.

Inscripción:

Nuevo libro. Tecnopolíticas: aproximaciones a los estudios de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad en Chile

Ediciones UAH acaba de publicar el libro Tecnopolíticas: aproximaciones a los estudios de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad en Chile editado por Alejandro Espinosa-Rada, Francisca Ortiz y Nicolás Sanhueza.

El volumen es una selección de estudios que usan herramientas de los ‘estudios sociales de las ciencias’ para el análisis de diferentes asuntos en Chile. Además de los editores, autores en el libro son: Sebastián Ureta, Juan Felipe Espinosa-Cristiá, José Ossandón, Tomás Ariztía, Gloria Baigorrotegui, Ignacio Farías, Martín Tironi, Fernando Valenzuela, Claudio Ramos Zincke, Jorge Castillo-Sepúlveda y Manuel Tironi. El índice y la introducción están disponibles acá. ¡Felicitaciones a Alejandro, Francisca y Nicolás!

Llamado a concurso Ayudantes de Investigación Anillo Knowledge in the making

El proyecto Conicyt PIA Anillo SOC180039 “Knowledge production in contemporary Chile: a multidisciplinary study of science in the making” busca dos ayudantes de investigación, para trabajar junto al Dr. Tomás Undurraga y el equipo de investigación del Anillo.

El proyecto analiza las prácticas, la institucionalidad y las culturas científicas en Chile a la luz de los procesos de generación de conocimiento. Se pregunta ¿Cómo la naturaleza y las prácticas de la investigación científica condicionan la institucionalidad de la ciencia? ¿Cómo deben caracterizarse los procesos de investigación que conducen a resultados? ¿Cómo estos procesos tienen lugar al interior de distintas culturas epistémicas? Una pieza central es la investigación etnográfica en laboratorios. En particular, estudiaremos la producción de conocimiento y las prácticas de investigación en el BNI (www.bni.cl) y el CR2 (www.cr2.cl).

Postulación: 1 de febrero al 4 de marzo, 2019

Requisitos de postulación:

Llamado a concurso para ayudantes de investigación “Gobierno y autogobierno en la producción de nuevos traders”

[Ximena Zabala envía el siguiente llamado]

FONDECYT N° 11171075 titulado Gobierno y autogobierno en la producción de nuevos traders. Una investigación sobre los procesos de incorporación al trabajo en el sector financiero bajo la dirección de Ximena Zabala busca dos ayudantes de investigación.

El objetivo general de este proyecto es explorar los modos de gobierno y autogobierno que performan la subjetividad de los traders durante el proceso de incorporación al trabajo en bancos. Este estudio pretende reconstruir el ensamblaje relacional de elementos materiales, técnicos, discursivos y humanos que permiten agenciar nuevos traders. Para ello, utilizará como marco analítico preferente los estudios sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología y los aportes de los estudios de gubernamentalidad.

En concreto, se espera que los ayudantes colaboren con el trabajo de campo mediante (1) trabajo en archivo, (2) la realización de entrevistas en profundidad (3) observación participante de corte etnográfico  y (4) Análisis de datos. La participación en el proyecto está pensada como un trabajo de media jornada y tendrá una duración en principio de seis meses, partiendo lo antes posible.

Knowledge-production in journalism: Translation, mediation and authorship in Brazil

[Nuevo artículo de Tomás Undurrage en The Sociological Review]

“Knowledge-production in journalism: Translation, mediation and authorship in Brazil”

Tomás Undurraga

Abstract

Based on a multi-site ethnography of two influential newspapers in Brazil, this article examines how Brazilian journalists mediate knowledge claims made by experts, policy makers and the lay public. It asks whether and how these journalists experience themselves as knowledge-makers. More specifically, it argues that Brazilian journalists index their production of knowledge in reference to four main characteristics: depth, authorship, influence, and expertise. Journalists tend to consider newsmaking a contribution to knowledge when: (1) they have the resources to do proper investigative reporting (depth); (2) they are able to help define the public agenda through their reporting and to express their opinion (authorship); (3) they have impact on the polity, the economy or other fields they cover (influence) and (4) their journalistic knowledge is recognized by readers and by specialists (expertise). In practice, however, there are multiple obstacles that make Brazilian journalists hesitant about their contribution to knowledge, including intensified working conditions, the lack of plurality within the mainstream presses, and their informal methods for dealing with knowledge claims from other fields. This research reveals that Brazilian journalists have different understandings of the nature of knowledge in journalism. These understandings cluster around two distinct poles: an expert notion of knowledge associated with disciplinary boundaries, and a distinct conception associated with journalists’ capacity to mediate between jurisdictions. When journalists’ production is assessed from the former point of view, the informality of their methods is seen as undermining their knowledge credentials. By contrast, when journalists’ contribution is assessed from the latter point of view, their ‘interactional expertise’ comes to the fore.