Submitting items to 4S and Technoscience Updates
The monthly deadline for inclusion in the newsletter is the 15th.
Calls for Papers
Find here non-event related calls for papers, such as special issue journals.
Deadline: October 01 2017
Updated: September 17 2017The photograph as a byproduct of intention does not begin with its publication. Although photographs are uniquely powerful because of their reproducibility, the specific camera equipment and its use also needs to be considered for a fuller understanding of the image. Research that focuses on camera technology will help us understand how and in what ways imaging technology impacts and forms the representation out of which we make knowledge, base our judgments, and ultimately act.
Before Representation: The Camera as Actor is an edited collection that aims to lead this conversation by bringing together scholars from various backgrounds and fields who study photographic technology in different time periods. By focusing on the camera, this edited volume builds on current literature to demonstrate the ways in which various types of imaging technology informs, elicits, and produces specific ways of seeing. Considering the photograph as a materialization resulting from a type of technology is often overlooked when thinking about the power of a photograph’s meaning. But photographs are the result of specific instruments that create powerful image extractions. A critical examination of camera technology will demonstrate the ways in which intention and imaginaries are married into facts through the potent inscription device called the camera.
Of particular interest are papers that take the camera as the object of inquiry with specific case studies about how photography has been, or is being, variously implemented and the impact it has on both social and scientific knowledge. From missile tracking to disease mapping, developing camera technology is being applied widely and variously to produce and render new and varied forms of photographic representations. Examining the types of changes that have occurred between older analogue forms and newer digital ones offers a comparative analysis about the ways in which camera choice does not simply influence the way a photograph looks, but determines which views and ideas are desired and potentially made possible.
Some questions authors might address include:
1. How have the camera and scientific research been related? Can the instrument be separated from its evidence?
2. Are affective qualities of the image created or enhanced through specific technologies?
3. What knowledge has been realized specifically through camera technology? What has been foreclosed?
4. What information has been asked from the photographic instrument?
5. What emerging photographic technologies exist and how are they being utilized?
6. Have changes in photographic technology ushered in new possibilities for the social?
7. Does new photographic technology impact identity, representation or sociality in ways that vary from earlier photographic technology? If so, in what ways?
Please email Amy Cox Hall (email@example.com) by October 1, 2017 with an extended abstract and brief bio for consideration.
Deadline: November 30 2017
Updated: September 17 2017The National Academy of Sciences is a private tax-exempt corporation that provides expert advice on some of the most pressing challenges facing the nation and the world. Our work helps shape sound policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. President Lincoln signed a congressional charter forming the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1863 to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science." As science began to play an ever-increasing role in national priorities and public life, the National Academy of Sciences eventually expanded to include the National Research Council (NRC) in 1916, National Academy of Engineering (NAE) in 1964, and National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was established in 1970 as the Institute of Medicine. These entities are collectively referred to as The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies). Request for Proposals On the occasion of the centennial of World War I, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are pleased to announce an open competition for scholars under the age of 301
to research and write a scholarly paper on a major aspect of how scientists and engineers in the United States were engaged in the World War I effort (see https://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/ww1/index.htm). The focus, drawing on the creation of the National Research Council associated with World War I, is on institutional changes (e.g., the charter of the NRC) and the research enterprise in America. In effect, scholars should look at how the war experience shaped long-term relationships among scientists and engineers and U.S. policymakers regarding national security and public welfare. (For a brief account of the NAS/NRC in the context of World War I visit https://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/pga_180900). A short bibliography of essential texts on the history of the NAS/NRC and a link to a finding aid for relevant materials in the archives of the National Academy of Sciences are available at https://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/pga_180902. Qualified scholars should submit, by November 30, 2017, a 500-word concept document that describes the scope of the proposed research. In addition, applicants should provide a list of possible primary sources of evidence to be used in the proposed research (one page maximum). The five best entries will be chosen by an NAS review committee (see https://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/pga_180901), and authors will be invited to submit a fully developed research paper. Upon acceptance of the invitation, invitees will enter into an agreement with NAS to provide a final paper of between 8,000 and 10,000 words2 by September 10, 2018. They will be provided with a grant of $5,000.00 for research expenses and invited to utilize the NAS’ records under the mentorship of NAS’ professional archivists.3 The scholars will be expected to present a 20-minute summary of major research findings at a public conference at the NAS in Washington, DC on October 26, 2018.4 Additional discussants and participants will be included in the public event. The review committee will subsequently deliberate and announce the winner of a $10,000.00 first prize. Payment of the $5,000.00 research grant will be made in two installments. An initial award of $2,500.00 will be made to finalists upon receipt of a signed copy of an award acknowledgement and verification of mailing address. A second award of $2,500.00 will be disbursed to finalists upon receipt by the review committee of a satisfactory progress report by July 1, 2018. The overall prize winner will receive an additional $10,000.00. The disbursement of any prize amount will be reported as gross income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the end of the tax year on IRS Form 1099. The NAS’ legal obligation is limited to the above-stated amounts, and the NAS will have no responsibility for costs incurred beyond this amount. The review panel will seek to facilitate the publication of final papers in an appropriate venue. Application Process and Selection Criteria: The competition is open to scholars born after November 12, 1988. Individual scholars and research teams of not more than two individuals may apply.5
Although the topic is fundamentally historical,
submissions from the perspective of any relevant scholarly discipline are encouraged. 500-word concept documents and a list of the primary sources of evidence to be used in the proposed research (one-page maximum) must be submitted on the web at http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/3761661/WWI-and-the-NAS-NRC by midnight (U.S. Eastern Standard Time) on November 30, 2017. Authors of concept proposals and of final invited papers will be asked to sign a statement certifying that they are the original author of submitted documents. Upon submission, invited papers will be automatically screened for potential plagiarism. Should plagiarism be discovered, the author(s) will be disqualified. Authors of invited papers must submit an interim progress report to the review panel by midnight (U.S. Eastern Daylight Time) on July 1, 2018. Invited final, full papers must be submitted as electronic Word documents to firstname.lastname@example.org by midnight (U.S. Eastern Daylight Time) on September 10, 2018.
Deadline: August 01 2017
Updated: August 11 2017Special issue of the online journal Genealogy http://www.mdpi.com/journal/genealogy
Deadline for expressions of interest: 1 August 2017
Deadline for submission of papers: 1 October 2017
It is now nearly two decades since genetic tests for information about ‘deep ancestry’ or to aid in genealogical research first came on the market in the United Kingdom and the United States. The numbers and locations of companies offering these tests has multiplied hugely since and the possibility of knowing something about ancestry through a genetic test has become embedded within public culture through media coverage of personal and collective stories of tests and results.
This special issue of Genealogy ‘Genetic Genealogy’ invites contributors to critically explore what is known as direct-to-consumer ancestry testing, genetic genealogy, or recreational genetics. Building on recent work on the nature and implications of these tests, the aim of this special issue is to extend critical engagements with the claims and limits of the tests themselves; document and analysis the emergence and development of this sector; and to address its impact and effects from the perspective of those who have undertaken these tests. Some potential areas of focus may include the following:
• the history and geography of the development of this sector; the relationship between commercial ventures and scientific research units and the role of key individuals and collaborations; its political economies and degree of regulation
• further analysis of the scientific basis of the tests and what they can and cannot say about ancestry and origins
• the ways in which genetic genealogy companies deal with categories of difference such as race, ethnicity, national identity
• the figuring of gender in relation to ideas of lineage and ancestry
• the experience of genetic genealogy for individuals, families and groups in terms of senses of identity, relatedness and belonging
• and the interpersonal and familial ethics and effects of instigating and producing this form of genealogical knowledge
• the incorporation of, or resistance to, genetic genealogy in collective histories and identities
• the relationship between conventional and genetic sources of historical knowledge in family history and issues of expertise and authority
• the degree to which genetic ancestry testing features in museums, public historical narratives and historical scholarship
• the nature, use and implications of genetic genealogy in different geographical contexts especially beyond the UK and US.
• the relationship between genetic genealogy and wider uses genomic determinations of ancestry and origin in other domains including forensic genomics and biometric immigration controls.
The deadline for papers of 5-8k words is 1 October 2017 but those interested in contributing are invited to contact the Catherine Nash (email@example.com) who is the guest editor for the special issue by 1 August 2017.
Deadline: February 01 2018
Updated: August 11 2017Configurations, the journal of SLSA (The Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts) is seeking submissions for a special issue on Science Studies and the Blue Humanities, edited by Stacy Alaimo.
We are interested in essays, position papers, provocations, and artist statements that explore the significance of science studies for the development of the blue humanities. As oceans and bodies of fresh water increasingly become sites for environmentally-oriented arts and humanities scholarship, how can the emerging blue humanities best engage with the theories, questions, paradigms, and methods of science studies? How do questions of scale, temporality, materiality, and mediation emerge in aquatic zones and modes? How can literature, art, data visualization, and digital media best respond to the rapidly developing sciences of ocean acidification and climate change as well as the less publicized concerns such as the effect of military sonar on cetaceans? Work on postcolonial/decolonial science studies, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), indigenous sciences, and citizen science especially welcome.
Please submit 5,000-7,000 word essays; 3,000 word position papers or provocations; or 2,000 word artist statements (with one or two illustrations or a link to a digital work); to Stacy Alaimo, firstname.lastname@example.org, by February 1, 2018, for consideration. All essays will be peer-reviewed, following the standard editorial procedures of Configurations.
Deadline: October 01 2017
Updated: July 09 2017Full paper deadline: November 1st
Working with data has become increasingly become part of many healthcare professionals job and of patient-citizens’ life, and data work requires more time, new competences and skills, and leads to new functions and roles. A common phrase upon data and healthcare goes *“**Healthcare is data rich,* yet information poor”. There is a huge amount of healthcare data, but it is inherently difficult to use for analyses of healthcare processes and outcomes be it regarding patients, treatments, resources, or efficiency. The challenge of turning data into information – that is making sense of data – has increased with the digitization of healthcare that has occurred within the last decade through, for example, electronic patient records (EHR) and more recently patient reported outcome measures (PROM). The amount of data available is grown hugely, and at the same time going digital has made the accumulation, visualization and analysis of data easier. More and more different kinds of data work have emerged, and this special issue aims to put into the focus the opportunities and challenges connection with the subsequent redistribution of work, time, resources, authority, and power that follow suit.
*What is data work?* ‘Data work’ has quite never been defined in the specialist literature, and remains a slippery notion. We see it as a coinage after the word ‘paper work’, of which it represents an abstraction, with respect to the medium of data representation; but also an extension, with respect to what people manage as data of their interest (besides accounting and resource management). As such, data work is not only "working on data", typically producing new data in accounting for and recording a faithful representation of the work done and the involved phenomena at hand; but also that portion of work whose execution, articulation and appraisal deeply and intensively rely on data, i.e., "working by data". These two kinds of work are usually so deeply intertwined that distinguishing between them is useless and probably wrong: in the healthcare domain, the studies by Berg (Berg 1999), for instance, clearly show that clinicians record data on the patient record not only to accumulate data for archival reasons (and for many other secondary uses), but also to coordinate with each other, articulate the resources around a medical case, and take informed decision in a written, distributed communication with themselves and the other colleagues taking care of the same patient. In healthcare, data work regards the additional effort paid by caregivers in making the record a “working record” (Fitzpatrick 2004), that is a resource capable of keeping disparate competencies and roles bound together and connected around the same cases over time and space.
However, the concept of ‘data work’ can facilitate descriptions and analysis of activities and tasks connected with generating, cooking, transforming, representing, comprehending, ect. in order to bring forward the new skills and competences demanded by healthcare professionals and patient-citizens alike, as well as the shifts in resources, authority, and power that this enables and entails. As such, data work can serve as an analytical lens to make visible these kinds of efforts or work, much in the same way that Strauss proposed the concepts of ‘articulation work’ and ‘machine work’ to make visible the efforts of aligning and coordinating tasks and work, or the efforts of assembling, adjusting, and connecting machines and patients in healthcare (Strauss et al. 1985). *Digitization of healthcare and the generation of data* The emergence of large-scale information infrastructures in healthcare (IIHI has enabled the use of health data for a range of new purposes related to data-driven management, accountability, and performance resource management as well as providing a new source and foundation for healthcare and medical research data.
For example, EHRs are increasingly expected to become ‘meaningful audit tools’ by general practitioners (Winthereik et al. 2007). Expectations are developing for the types and depth of biomedical and organizational research that can be using second order data from these systems. Hence, healthcare data are expected to support inquiries such as: What drugs work best for which subgroup of patients with a certain diagnosis? How can operating rooms most optimally be staffed and used? How can IIHs be used as a foundation for data-driven management? The proliferation of tools and consulting services that promise to make healthcare organizations “data-driven”, are rapidly shifting the organization and management of healthcare practice, and the socio-technical setup is reconfigured, from in situ, socially negotiated practice to seemingly objective, rational, and scientific logics on an institutional scale. Hence, there is a pressing need to explore how healthcare data and data-driven management contributes to this reconfiguration. How is the role of medical professions changing? How is the nature of the professional expertise changing, and what are the implications for the autonomy and discretion long enjoyed by clinicians? Along similar lines, external actors such as the general public, accreditation, and state authorities increasingly demand that healthcare organizations become more transparent and accountable by providing data through performances measures (Pine and Mazmanian 2014). This is spurred by a demand to see that healthcare organizations deliver services of high quality and according to the best healthcare standards (Christensen and Ellingsen, 2014) while using funding and resources most efficiently. Healthcare organizations and individual clinicians are evaluated according to metrics that assess care delivery, such as: Are patients diagnosed with cancer treated within the stipulated time? Which ward or hospital is most cost- and resource-effective? Amidst these high stakes come concerns about the situated practices of making, managing, and using data. The creation, maintenance, aggregation, transport, and re-purposing of data does not happen without work effort to collect and transform data.
‘Raw Data is an Oxymoron’, a bad idea and should be cooked with care, as Bowker succinctly stated (Bowker 2005). With the emergence of IIH and the increasing demand for data-driven management, accountability and increased performance, the importance and character of working with, by and upon data increases. Themes for the special issue Topics relevant for this special issue include, but are not limited to, the following: · *The new work of healthcare data*: What are the new competences, tasks, and functions that the emergence of data-driven healthcare entails? How are existing occupations and professions changing in the wake of the push for data-driven healthcare? · *The new ‘data work’ of patients: *What does it involve to be enrolled or engaged in the generation, distribution, understanding of data on one’s health, and have such data come back to you filtered and interpreted by other parties that base interventions for you on those data? · *The politics of creating and using healthcare data*: How do categories, classifications and algorithms shape what counts as data, and what do these schemes make visible and invisible? ·
*Artefacts and infrastructures as knowledge production*: Artefacts enter and shape the processes of knowledge production according to their own characteristics and entail their own epistemological implications and shape knowledge forms. · *Reflection, management and accountability*: What instances of reflection, management and accountability are created with specific healthcare IT systems? What are the challenges, conflicts, and opportunities? · *Systems design: *How do the agendas of data for accountability and secondary uses influence and become integrated into systems design and development? Is this a simple add-on, or a dominant concern? What is the role of health informatics research?
*Important dates:* Important dates: Abstract October 1st; Full paper November 1st; 1st Notification January 15th; revised submissions March 15th; Final notification April 15th; Camera-ready papers May 1st.
Publication: Mid-2018 *Manuscript Format:* Please check the website for guidelines upon formatting of your manuscript ( https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal/health-informatics-journal# submission-guidelines). Your manuscript should be between 3000 and 4000 words long (excl. references). Please also supply an abstract of 100-150 words, and up to five keywords, arranged in alphabetical order. Mark your submission “Special issue on Data work in healthcare” in the manuscript header as well as in the submission letter.
March 07 2018 to March 09 2018 | Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA
Deadline: October 19 2017
Updated: June 08 2017
The 200th anniversary year of the first edition of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus has drawn worldwide interest in revisiting the novel’s themes. What were those themes and what is their value to us in the early twenty-first century? Mary Shelley was rather vague as to how Victor, a young medical student, managed to reanimate a person cobbled together from parts of corpses. Partly as a result of this technical gap, and partly as a result of many other features of the novel, Frankenstein continues to inspire discourse in scholarly, popular, and creative culture about the Monstrous, the Outsider, the Other, and scientific ethics. This conference will examine such connections in our thinking about humanism and techno-science from the novel’s publication to the present. We construe broadly the intersecting themes of humanism, technology, and science and we welcome proposals from all fields of study for presentations that add a twenty-first century perspective to Frankenstein. Topic areas may include but are not limited to:
Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
Branding “Frankenstein” (Food, Comics, Gaming, Music, Theater, Film)
Computational and Naval Technology (Mapping, Navigation, The Idea of the Journey)
Digital Humanities and GeoHumanities (Applications, Pedagogy, Library/Information
Engineering Technologies: Past/Present/Future (Chemical, Electrical, Biomedical)
Future Technologies and Labor Concerns
Submit abstracts of 300 words and brief CV by 15 October 2017 to Michael Geselowitz (email@example.com) and Robin Hammerman (firstname.lastname@example.org).