MINUTES OF MEETING OF 4S COUNCIL
July 15th/16th 2024
Agenda July 15th/16th 2024 @ 11:00-16:00 CEST
Anne Pollock called the meeting to order at 11:00 AM CEST
ITEM 1 Greetings
In attendance: (1) Anne Pollock (President), (2) Rohit Negi (online), (3) Lucy van de Wiel, (4) Monamie Bhadra Haines, (5) Amit Prasad (Treasurer), (6) Marko Monteiro, (7) Barkha Kagliwal (6S, voting), (a) Zhaopeng Li (6S, non-voting), (8) Melissa McCreary, (9) Vincent Li, (10) Pouya Sepehr (6S, non-voting), (11) Canay Özden-Schilling, (12) Yelena Gluzman, (13) Michal Nahman, (14) Vivian Choi (Secretary), and (c) Amanda Windle (Managing Director, non-voting).
New Council members joining to observe (i.e. non-voting): (d) Wen-hua Kuo (President-Elect), (e) Noela Invernizzi (forthcoming Secretary), (f) Yichen Rao (forthcoming council member), (g) Cathy Herbrand (forthcoming council member) (online), and (h) Shiv Issar (forthcoming council member) (online).
Many of the leaving Council expressed their enjoyment for their time on Council and a desire to stay on committees in ex-officio capacity. Vivian Choi encouraged people to join the ethics committee. Canay Özden-Schilling expressed a wish to join the Fleck prize committee. Yelena Gluzman shared joy for working on the Making and Doing Committee and encouraged people to work on the Making and Doing committee in the future and recommended chairing for the committee to be two people in the future. Michal Nahman expressed interest in joining the Making and Doing Committee in the future too. Anne Pollock was excited by the enthusiasm for volunteering for this year’s committees and urged 2024–5 prize committees to make the most of the lead-in time for Seattle 2025. Anne thanked all committee members for their service to the Society and recognised that this is a lot of work.
Apologies
Leaving Members: Eugene Richardson (absent – paternity leave). New Council members: Upali Bhattacharya (absent), and Thao Phan (absent).
ITEM 2 Approval of March Minutes
Action: Amanda Windle to change the Fleck and Carson chairs (reverse the order), then the minutes are ready to publish. VOTE: The motion to approve the March minutes was moved by Michal Nahman and seconded by Marko Monteiro, and approved by (13) votes, with zero (0) against, and (0) abstention. The motion was carried.
To accommodate Teun Zuiderent-Jerak’s arrival Agenda Items 4 and 5 were taken ahead of schedule.
ITEM 4 Amsterdam Update & ITEM 5 Joint Conferences and Affiliations* Yelena Gluzman joined at this point in the meeting. Items 4 and 5 merged into one agenda item to allow Teun Zuiderent-Jerak to contribute to both discussions.
Teun Zuiderent-Jerak (Amsterdam, lead local co-organiser) welcomed everyone to the Amsterdam conference and gave a quick update on the conference to date, including concerns for ethics issues around various panels at the conference, and left shortly after this item was discussed.
ITEM 3 Review Actions Table
Pollock and Windle noted that the actions were mostly ‘done,’ with most items that are ongoing having a place in the agenda for further discussion.
ITEM 6 Event Ethics Update
Vivian Choi (Chair of the Ethics Committee) chaired the committee’s recent report and disseminated the 4S ethics policy document (in paper) for the duration of the meeting. Choi introduce two items for potential discussion: (1) confidential materials (a dossier) for this meeting, and (2) the role of the event ethics committee during the Amsterdam conference.
The 4S ethics committee had found that there was no violation of the 4S ethics code of conduct policy, and no further action necessary in relation to the dossier brought to Council.
Pollock noted the context of the external request for a dossier of documents to be discussed at Council and then asked Council if (a) there was any need to discuss this request further than what has been presented to this point by Choi, (b) if there is anything that Council needs to revisit, (i.e. any redress?), and (c) if there is anything Council needs to do to contribute to a positive environment on social media, for instance? Windle noted confidentiality on the dossier, and further identifying materials have been omitted from this agenda item. Choi reiterated the policy and societal work that has been undergone in 4S spaces and in relation to community building. For instance, the ethics workshop co-led by Anne Pollock (president-elect in 2022) and Emma Kowal (President, 2022) in Cholula’22 is an example of workshopping for all members. Amit Prasad, Melissa Creary, Monamie Bhadra Haines, Barkha Kagliwal, Lucy Van de Wiel, Vincent Li reflected on work conducted in 4S spaces from workshops through to social media spaces and ways to improve on work going forward. Wen-ha asked for 6S contributions to discussion with Barkha Kagliwal and Pouya Sepher adding to the discussion.
Pollock mentioned that the local organisers have been making a lot of preparations in relation to ethical matters for the forthcoming conference. Pollock asked if there was a need to vote, endorse, action on the areas that had been discussed. Action: Choi to draft a letter and work within the ethics committee to then share with Council and send on behalf of the Council.
Finally, Anne Pollock considered Cathy Herbrand as the new Chair of the Ethics Committee and asked for Council members to take lead in updating the policy. Action: Vivian Choi, Zheng (Vincent) Li, Noela Invernizzi, Monamie Bhadra Haines volunteered to join the Ethics Committee.
ITEM 7 Finance
Pollock introduced the CDs investment plan to date with Prasad presenting on the following vote for ratification. VOTE: The motion that 4S Council ratifies the digital vote: 4S to continue its investment strategy and invest $150k (not including interest earned (expected to be 5.5k)) in a CDs in July 2024 was moved by Canay Özden-Schilling, and seconded by Vivian Choi and approved by (14) votes, with zero (0) against, and (0) abstention. The motion was carried.
Recommendation/Action: Windle and Prasad (Treasurer) to look at by-laws for investing in current practice on CDs going forward for a 12-month timeframe. Van de Wiel asked if this portfolio would be of different investments in the future? Prasad noted that this presently only covers CDs. Action: Windle to share the finance report written by Aneesh with Council.
Windle presented the 2024 budget with estimated income and actual expenditure to date.
Pollock adjourned the meeting for a lunch break at 12:30 PM CEST and reconvened at 13:37 PM CEST.* Seattle 2025 Conference Organising Co-chairs—Daniela Rosner, Anne Lauren Hoffmann, along with their colleague Anissa Tanweer (Program Co-Chair with David Ribes) joined the meeting for item 8 at the end of the lunchbreak, with Chris Kelty similarly joining the meeting for item 10.
ITEM 8 4S Seattle’25 Conference Meeting
Daniela Rosner, Anne Lauren Hoffmann introduced themselves to Council as a form of a meet and greet, with Anissa Tanweer noted that this was an opportunity to data gather, with Rosner and Hoffmann highlighting provisional plans for the Seattle’25 meeting. Rosner and noted that there are three campuses in Seattle, and a lot of energy for the conference with the aim to convert interested energy into commitments and have all leadership positions finalised by the end of July. Pollock noted that the team were ahead on the lead-in time. Rosner brought questions on the theme to Council, asking—what makes a good theme?
Choi offered specifics to place as important and how this is important for considering who you would want to invite i.e. in NewOrleans’19 had specific ideas of what voices we want to forefront and platform in the organising process; what issues you perceive; and what hopes? Haines offered her my favourite plenary was at Honolulu’23, because it was very powerful and placed us, helping to siutate the struggles, and people who lived there with contributions from activists and scholars (it wasn’t a colonised space). Van de Wiel urged the Seattle team to be in touch with the organisers at Honolulu’23 to look at the feedback they got on the theme, plus how they dealt with matters such as Airbnb housing situation for conference attendees. Hoffmann noted that the Sheraton hotel is near to Amazon Spheres. Van de Wiel noted the prize winners and honourable mentions from this year as something to consider in relation to themes. Creary urged the team to think more intentionality around justice and how STS interfaces with power in particular ways, remembering Alondra Nelson and others presenting at Toronto’21, and what this powerhouse of collective women did and promoted! Kagliwal commented on plans for 6S for Seattle noting that 6S will plan a social in coordination with the conference organisers, and if this does not take place in the conference venue (Sheraton hotel) offered the view that it could perhaps take place in an art gallery but not a for-profit café because what we spend money on is important.
Gluzman commented specifically on the Making and Doing workshops, and how they can be incredibly rewarding, but that there are some things to think about if you have them in the Making and Doing call, or as a separate call for workshops. Making and Doing is adjudicated at the conference and awards (certificates) can be presented at the conference for the same year with organisation. Scheduling attendance to workshops is crucial. The general call for Making and Doing in their abstracts will ask about technical requirements, but will there be other spaces nearby that be utilised? Recommendation: For Shiv Issar to be involved in helping to infrastructure Making and Doing for 2025.
Noela Invernizzi, noted that the conference is getting more transnational, and where it is very institutionalised you have a lot of STS production, so make sure to represent STS from different places. Windle added, to consider the theme in line with the mission statement of 4S and noted the 50th anniversary of 4S in 2025. Action: Windle to follow-up on the MOU with the Sheraton Hotel.
ITEM 9 50th Anniversary Planning
Pollock noted that marking the 50th anniversary is either (a) the year of the founding of the society (2025), or (b) the year of the first conference (2026), so it could be the year after if need be?! 2025, can be a marking of senior scholars, and a time to celebrate open access and the expanding scope and reach of STS scholarship. Kuo noted that we have the history of early 4S, and we could make use of that material for that 50-year celebration. Pollock added that we should ‘do’ backward and forward, as a way to do it. Choi noted past presidents on Backchannels were already added in 2018. Nassim Parvin will be in Seattle, and can help with plans around the journal Catalyst also turning 10. Action: Choi to pass on past timelines to Hoffmann and Rosner. Action: Windle to share emails and notes from this meeting. Recommendation: Council to share and recommend the Seattle meeting tomorrow for all interested (beyond Council). Recommendation: Van de Wiel ask Teun for the postmortem list.
ITEM 10 Publications
While there is no publications meeting planned for 4S Amsterdam, Kelty updated Council on the two journals ST&HV and ESTS which included updates from Kelty on the status of handbook and transition planning for ESTS too. Both Cari Lancaster (Editor) and Carolina Caliaba (Managing Editor) joined kelty in giving verbal updates outside of the annual report season. Recommendation: ST&HV journal would like to find another way to administrate additional journal activities without it being down to the administration of the journal’s editorship. Recommendation: Council to share that ST&HV has language editing resources for authors. Kelty noted that there were no additional updates from ESTS for today’s meeting, as it is too soon from Honolulu’s meeting for receiving the annual report. However, the transition from the current ESTS editorial collective (EC) to the next is coming to a point of (a) a transition, or (b) a new editorial collective. Action: It is up to the current ESTS editorial collective to put their proposal forward as the starting point.
Kelty will cycle out of the interim chair of the publications committee after this meeting so that he can concentrate his time being the third support person for the next STS handbook. Nicole Nelson and David Ribes are looking at a draft to bring to the next Council meeting, with the proposal finalised in Seattle’25. The next question would be financing it and thought that the 50th anniversary will be a great way to consolidate a fundraising offer. Kagliwal asked a question related to if the handbook would be geared to early career scholars, and is the handbook going to work for people starting to teach in STS? Pollock supported investing in the STS handbook and urged Council to liaise with David Ribes for more information. Pollock also supported the Council investing in future journal workshops. Pollock called for interest—for 5 members of Council—to create a working group that can support open access and other initiatives, which in time could become an ad hoc fundraising committee. Action: Amit Prasad, Wen-hua Kuo, Vincent Li, Amanda Windle, and potentially Michal Nahman volunteered to work on a fundraising working group. Action: Pollock to appoint new Chair of the Publications Committee. Action: Council to receive a concrete proposal for the STS handbook from David Ribes, Chris Kelty and Nicole Nelson.
ITEM 11 Appointed Roles
Windle recused herself for this agenda item due to a conflict of interest related to the renewal of the Managing Director role. Pollock chaired the discussion to renew two roles for the Society: the Digital Coordinator (Issar stepped down from the role to take a tenure-track position and join Council as an elected member) and Managing Director role (role up for renewal end of 2024).
Anne Pollock introduced the topic of the Managing Director role, which has been going well since its introduction under the previous 4S President, with Amanda Windle in the role. Pollock noted that although the role has evolved somewhat as it has been put into practice and will need some updating, it is working very well and asked the Council to extend the contract for an additional two years. Several Council members weighed in on topics including the value of the role itself for realising the goal of continuing the professionalisation, internationalisation, and transparency of 4S, the performance of the current person in the role, the appropriateness of the current level of compensation and hours, and the advantage of continuity of personnel in the role to provide institutional knowledge across transitions in the makeup of the elected leadership of 4S. The incoming President-Elect Wen-Hua Kuo suggested that the contract be extended for three years rather than two, to ensure continuity through the next presidency, and this was universally recognised as a wise course of action. VOTE: The motion to approve in principle both to support the continuation of the Managing Director role, and for the renewal of the Amanda Windle’s contract for three more years was moved by Gluzman and seconded by Prasad and approved by (14) votes, with zero (0) against, and (0) abstention. The motion was approved unanimously. Action: Ad hoc committee made up of the Executive Committee (President, Secretary, Treasurer, President Elect) plus Council member Michal Nahman will update the role description for contract renewal. Action: Windle and Pollock to recruit for the renewed Digital Website Coordinator role via Technoscience and STS News.
ITEM 12 Remaining standing and ad hoc committee reports and reflections and ITEM 13 Prizes
Recommendation: Özden-Schilling would like to sign up to the Fleck prize as ex-officio after leaving Council. Michal Nahman and Marko Monteiro discussed the process of how they managed their prize committees in conjunction for 2024, and the robust debate and discussion which took place over three meetings. Negi, really enjoyed, and said that he would do it again, but in a year or two! Monteiro added that the timing was tight (i.e. 8 months altogether rather than 11-14 months lead-in time) and there were lots of books this year, which meant that the process was stressful but it’s great to read the books and contact with scholarship. Pollock and Windle thanked the committee for their organisational skills for managing the prizes this year. It was agreed that the Carson prize was cancelled due to the winner’s ill-health. Action: Local organisers to cancel the Carson prize on the timetable. Pollock proposed change to the book and article prizes offering the Council time to reflect on their experiences over the past few years. Özden-Schilling asked for clarification on what might happen with a potential transition year for changes to the timings on prizes? Pollock confirmed that the Society could publicise the change now, with prizes for 2023 or 2024 being nominated for in 2024, but after that the change would come into effect—meaning that only books and articles published in 2025 could win in 2026. Nahman wanted to explore that messaging and make it explicit to membership. The Council worked through the changes for both articles and books with Van de Wiel bringing consensus around keeping articles as they are. The motion was updated to reflect that change. VOTE: The motion to approve the change for the book prizes (i.e. Fleck and Carson prize) to consider nominees from one calendar year only with a transition period of one calendar year was moved by Choi and seconded by Monteiro and approved by (14) votes, with zero (0) against, and (0) abstention. The motion was approved.
The Edge prize update was presented by the committee Chair, van de Wiel. Recommendation: committees should not to have a committee made of an even number of people because it can be difficult as it was this year when there was a moment of indecision. Recommendation: Pollock recommended as best practice for each prize committee to have a past winner if possible. The Mullins prize update was presented by from Pouya Sepher on behalf of prize committee chair (Eugene Richardson). There were 10 papers for the Edge prize increasing from 3 from last year, and the winner from last year was on the committee. How do we recruit the nominees for the articles from ECRs?! Council noted how each journal does this: (i.e. ST&HV, Catalyst, ESTS, and BioSocieties do). And for PhD advisor community. Recommendation: For 6S to support the communications on nominating for prizes. Vincent Li presented the STS Infrastructure prize update as chair of the committee, commenting that the criteria could benefit from being more transparent, but it was very clear the winner of this year’s prize. Yelena Gluzman, chair of the Making and Doing committee presented on the different formats that the projects use this year, and considered ways to think about them differently, like workshops, films for instance because some screenings are a full-length film, and they need a different mode of promoting and evaluating. Previously, Wes Shrum would do a lunchtime screening, and it didn’t take off, but it created a different kind of space for sitting down and watching films. Recommendation: Gluzman considered a cinema-film-STS separate M&D award. The projects this year are great! And asked Council to come and check them out!
ITEM 14 Elections
Chair of the elections committee, Özden-Schilling presented on the 2024 election in relation to 2023 which was a lot of work whereas this year there were a lot more nominees, so it was less work with most work being operationalised by Windle and Pollock. The positions like Secretary and Presidents are hard work and are harder to do which reflects in the number of nominees per role.
ITEM 15 Future Meetings Update
Choi and Monteiro recapped on progress reminding Council that we didn’t write a policy, and we’re not sure what the product needs to be, but there is no policy at present. Action: Choi confirmed that we could try and put together something, ahead of 2027 (which the last confirmed conference). There was general discussion around the next ‘rest of the world’ location rotation should be Africa, but the current unrest in Nairobi is problematic the future. Invernizzi noted that Africa is more absent in 4S and we need to work on this right now. Pollock noted that we did do this just before pandemic, but Covid-19 shifted the momentum. Invernizzi noted that we do have had travel grants from scholars travelling from Africa on those awards. STS India is a group that is formed, and they are meeting on Friday, and Prasad will share this. Recommendation: Workout a timeline and deadline for working on location setting beyond 2027?
ITEM Amsterdam and collaborations.
Pollock opened a discussion around the considerations of collaborating with EASST, including the idea of doing a gap year with a different European version (i.e. the gap would be with EASST). Choi, asked do we need to keep with the cycle? Prasad suggesting partnering with other STS groups in Europe in relation to a rotation with EASST or indeed shifting that pattern. It still makes sense to have most of 4S meetings in the US, but which year would be the year in Europe that would change?
Action: Monteiro will write up something with Choi over August—an overall agreement—about requirements for a proposal, and Council could choose based on criteria, and change those rhythms, and this could move to the politics, like Europe is no good this year, but okay for another year.
Action: Windle to add agenda item for next council meeting to: return in the Council meeting for a concrete proposal for the 2028 conference proposal (before October 2024).
ITEM ISC membership
Pollock suggested for someone to have a particular role with coordinating the International Science Council (ISC). There should be a second representative to the ISC society, and Vincent Li is already a rep in China, but above the member role within a committee. Özden-Schilling has been a representative at an ISC event in Malaysia and noted that sometimes the events are online too. Monteiro, Haines, Invernizzi, and Gluzman expressed an interest. Pollock noted that while there are regional gatherings, the some person would need to be someone to connect people with an aim for 4S to have expertise at the ISC. Action: To create an internationalisation team for ISC events, including Marko, Invernizzi, Gluzman, Özden-Schilling, (Vincent) Li and Haines; with (Vincent) Li helping to coordinate on how to do this?
ITEM 12 6S Updates
Barkha Kagliwal and Pouya Sepehr jointly presented on the 6S survey results) and how they have actioned some of the results—like including engagements during the conference itself. For instance, at 9am there’s a publications panel for ECR researchers in collaboration with EASST arranged by Pouya Sepehr. Students of the society want networking opportunities but without homework! There’s a huge number signed up for this year’s networking with 120 people signed up. Only 54 scholars participated in the survey, but there are very good insights, and it is forward-looking in terms of who responded (1st to 2nd year PhD students). Recommendation: Sepehr recommended next year’s survey to collate geographic distribution for the next 6D survey. Key areas for future work including comminuciation channels for 6S and building on networking opportunities. There is a lot of interest in writing workshops, and today we have wonderful editors for handbooks and that triggered more ideas, Sepehr added! Maybe we can join things up with writing workshops, and the Mullins prize could be labelled as 6S? Action: Pouya Sepehr and Zhaopeng Li to consider how 6S can better communicate throughout the year (i.e. with other editors and supervisors, via Backchannels and the Technoscience. Pollock suggested co-branded events like 6S with universities networks gathering in locations like London and Boston, they might welcome a change to gather? Recommendation: Choi recommended 6S to consider STS sideways, scholars that aren’t in STS or doing STS proper! What would it take to feel like, we’re in STS. And most of us didn’t graduate within a program of STS. So what does it mean to do STS?
ITEM 15 Reflections from Departing Council Members and Thinking About the Year Ahead
Pollock noted that capacity building and memory building has been made! Özden-Schilling shared how lovely it has been on Council, and it is important to not lose those ties! Kagliwal is moving off, and loves this too! Lucy added that it was important agree and also disagree on things as a Council, and it is a really good model for how the world should work! Thanks were expressed towards one another and for Anne Pollock, Amanda Windle and Emma Kowal (past-president). The Council shared leaving cards.
ITEM 16 Any Other Business
A MOU was signed with CAST by the President at the end of the meeting. Pollock, urged for more of these collaborations. Having an STS China workshop together with different groups is a future possibility, and MOUs might help for that!
Pollock urged Council to support one another at various events throughout the week.
The meeting was drawn to a close at 4.39pm CEST.