MINUTES OF 4S BUSINESS MEETING OF 4S COUNCIL
October 3rd/4th 2024
Agenda October 3rd/4th 2024 @ 13:00 BST
Anne Pollock called the meeting to order at [13:03] AM BST
ITEM 1 Greetings
In attendance: Anne Pollock, Amanda Windle (ex-officio), Upali Bhattacharya (non-voting), Amit Prasad, Marko Monteiro, Rohit Negi, Noela Invernizzi (Secretary), Shiv Issar, Thao Phan, Yelena Gluzman, Cathy Hebrand, Zhaopeng Li, Pouya Sepehr, Vincent Li, Melissa McCreary, Monamie Bhadra Haines, Michal Nahman, and Wen-hua Kuo (President-Elect).
Guests included: Aalok Khandekar (ESTS) and Tim Neale (ST&HV).
Apologies
Yichen Rao (sent in advance). Michal Nahman sent apologies for the first 30minutes of the meeting.
ITEM 2 Review Actions Table
Items were reviewed for further ongoing actions.
ITEM 3 Approval of July Minutes
No corrections received. VOTE: The motion to approve the July minutes was moved by Marko Monteiro and seconded by Amit Prasad, and approved by (12) votes, with zero (1) against, and (0) abstention. The motion was carried.
ITEM 4 Approval of July Business Minutes
No corrections received. VOTE: The motion to approve the July Business minutes was moved by Noela Invernizzi and seconded by Monamie Bhadra Haines, and approved by (11) votes, with zero (0) against, and (1) abstention. The motion was carried.
ITEM 5a Responding to Past Presidents’ suggestion that 4S should have issued a statement affirming commitment to due process, and the Open Letter supporting VU for Falestine and ITEM 12 Ethics Update were taken as a joint agenda item
Pollock discussed two current ethical issues raised that were beyond 4S events as a way to open up a discussion of revising the policy on statement writing by asking: is it now perhaps the time to proceed towards a multi-statement on statements? Melissa McCreary offered that we are a Society that studies society, so how could this be questioned in terms of our remit? Pollock agreed adding, that 4S is more than one voice on one particular position. Monamie Bhadra Haines, agreed that we must not be reduced into a binary position of a versus b, but also not saying anything is saying a lot. Amit Prasad added that it does seem like we’re absolving ourselves from social and economic issues that arise, so perhaps we need to reframe and this will take time. Council reworked some of the policy in the meeting, but felt that it would best to rework this policy for voting in the next Council meeting in December. Monteiro agreed that presently the draft policy makes sense on single issues, but not on broader issues, noting that in Latin America academics are signing statements every day. Pollock summarised that there is a huge gap from issuing a statement and other ways of speaking like a forum. Prasad, we added that we need to not foreclose but open-up the issue. Prasad suggested that responding to issues must not shut down other voices. Noela Invernizzi commented about the frame, and being very careful to get the balance on a liberty of expression, but I am completely against any scholars that are based in a country that is involved in matters of war being cancelled.
Michal Nahman joined at 1:37pm. Pollock looped back to engage Michal Nahman in the discussion.
Action: Pollock summarised that personal responses will be made on the two items as a follow-up. Action: Further revisions of the policy on general statements will be worked on further to be voted on in the December meeting.
ITEM 5b Responding to EASST’s suggestion for a 4-year cycle
Pollock paraphrased the suggestion from EASST’s recent email: about changes to the partnership in relation to (a) the size of the conference (5,000 abstracts submitted in 2024), (b) rotation and cycle of the conference (past years it has been an informal 4-year cycle with no legal agreement (i.e. Memorandum of Understanding), and (c) also the financial split between the two societies. Monteiro picked up on this issue in relation to the Future Meetings committee’s current work: working on insights from the survey in 2024, key areas of interest included accessibility and carbon footprint for members, but it is difficult to achieve a conference location formula based on this survey, but it is clear that we should have more flexibility on where we locate the conference in the future. Pollock concluded that there are synergies between the needs of both societies going forward to rethink about the conference cycle. Thao Phan noted that it can be a self-perpetuating thing—that if you move the location—you will grow membership in those places. Pollock, had received feedback from many people attending from other societies that they like 4S for its global perspective, and focused discussion on the 6-year cycle, and if it needs to be so restricted? Pollock and Windle discussed the financial split between 4S and EASST for 2025 based on the two society’s different business models (with 4S having higher running costs). Invernizzi noted that while it can be sad to break with a tradition—when looking at how transnational STS—there are places in Europe that can be semi-peripheral, and those places we can promote a participation of the region (i.e. Lithuania, Hungary, Poland), but Amsterdam was almost a repetition of EASST’s European conference, noting that 4S has an opportunity to consider new venues and promote the field in other places. Monteiro reiterated that this ‘break up’ has happened amicably with Prasad, noting that this is a good thing for 4S because it is restraining both societies in various ways: it is not a ‘break up’ with Europe, but with EASST with various networks bringing alternative collaboration opportunities: i.e. STS in Switzerland, Italy and Germany. Phan noted that these STS organisations have different viewpoints which bring new opportunities to do other things. Pollock summarised that at this point there is nothing to action, because it is a live process.
ITEM 6 6S Updates
Pouya Sepher introduced the activities of 6S in Amsterdam including engagement activities, with a recap on first- and second-year students being the major responding groups for the 2024 survey. The aim going forward is to broaden a range of audiences to give services to and reach out beyond early doctoral stage members, to further engage with early-career researchers as a rebrand of 6S. Sepher asked council: how can we redo the survey and improve outreach? Sepher suggested that 6S will improve by having regular updates in the 4S newsletter (Technoscience), invite more ECRs to contribute to the 4S blog (Backchannels), and focus activities around = the annual meeting, to collaborate and run panels, etc. Action: Armstrong to bring in 6S news to the Technoscience newsletter as a new section going ahead.
ITEM 7 Finance Update
Windle presented the new infrastructures for abstracts submissions for 2025 and the agreed budget. Three new providers sought after MemberLeap could not deliver the abstract submissions system offer for 2025. Those providers included mid-to-high ($10–30k USD per annum) range packages by: Confex, Cadmium, Oxford Abstracts and X-CD.
Prasad presented an update on the investment of CDs. With interest rates are dropping and be penalties for breaking CDs, Prasad had reviewed the current offer from Chase. The CDs are 6- and 9-month investment, but Prasad advise to move to 3 months CD investment when the existing offers run out. Pollock after discussion concluded that this is an interim measure, i.e. moving to a nimbler strategy for shorter term CDs for more return. VOTE: The motion to approve all CDs to be within 3-month cycle (once expired) moving forward October 2024 was moved by Yelena Gluzman and seconded by Michal Nahman, and approved by (15) votes, with zero (0) against, and (0) abstention. The motion was carried.
ITEM 8 Exec Update and ITEM 11 Committee Updates were taken at the same time
Pollock shared that the Executive are planning (in November) for the 50th anniversary gathering.
ITEM 9 Publications Update (from ESTS, ST&HV, and Handbook)
Aalok Khandekar and Tim Neale joined the meeting. Khandekar reported on the need to change the editorship as it comes to an end of term in December 2025. This draft has come to council, and it needs to be finalised before the end of 2024. Khandekar would like to ask Council to move on this as a priority so that there is an overlap between the two teams. Pollock noted that Kelty has rolled off the committee and is not able to be a Chair. We’re working with one person as Chair and has been speaking to Nicole Nelson about this post. Pollock asked, are there any editor that would like to extend on ESTS? The general consensus is that it should shift, and it is good practice all round. The same collective cannot continue beyond that tenure, but ideally, we should avoid that when new Chair comes in. Action: Recruiting of new ESTS editorial team is priority for Publications Committee for new Chair.
Tim Neale discussed the ST&HV journal work on the language and the reviewers’ role in this aspect. Also, ST&HV’s 3-year editorial board is coming to an end and will move on that soon. The Managing Editor (Carolina Caliaba) contract comes to an end in Dec 2024, which was recently forwarded to the publications committee and then to Council. Pollock, wanted clarity on the number of hours going up to justify a proposed pay increase? Neale, said no, it reflects the volume going up which makes it harder to do some of the tasks. Pollock considered that this 3rd year of pay increase is high in comparison to other editorial jobs and this needs to be returned to properly as a matter of equity for managing editors (ESTS/ST&HV). Action: Publications Committee to review raise for the ST&HV ME. Action: Neale to address clarity around the higher salary for the ME of ST&HV.
ITEM 10 Seattle Conference Update
Reverberation is the conference theme for 2025. The timelines have been confirmed. And one of the co-chairs has stepped down (Anna Lauren Hoffmann). A replacement co-chair(s) search is in progress.
ITEM 11 Any Other Business
[This item was suggested during the executive update, but added here for clarity]. Gluzman asked if there could be a sub-committee to review the Making & Doing and a set of instructions and guidelines on it. Gluzman was already reviewing it with past chairs, and commented that it is time to review it after ten years. Recommendation: Gluzman will chair this group.
There was no time for the MOUs as previously scheduled in AOB.
Action: Add MOUs to the next Council meeting.
Meeting was drawn to a close by Anne Pollock at 15:00.