Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/91

Click to flip

91 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Callon et al. (2009)
hybrid forums, spaces opened up in the event of controversies that are capable of sparking debate, groups involved and the spokespersons claiming to represent them are heterogenous
Whatmore and Landstrom (2011)
CGs are forums for collaborative thinking designed to interrogate the ‘intermediate stages’ of expert knowledge production which ‘best highlight the connections between scientific work and other types of activities’ and, at the same time, to generate new collective competences in handling the uncertainties of flood-risk knowledge and redistribute expertise.
Callon (1994)
The question of ‘how to make public science more public’ cannot be adequately addressed by how well science serves governmental or commercial agendas. Rather, as Callon suggested some time ago, it requires an expanded appreciation of the extraordinary capacity of science for invention ‘as a source of variety, according to the strategic configurations into which it enters’
Whatmore (2009)
Callon's 'hot situations' or Latour's 'matters of concern'= moments of ontological disturbance in which unexamined parts of material fabric of life become molten. Controversies= fields were expertise is redistributed. expert/lay relations change. mode 2 science: replace expert research agenda with interdisciplinary knowledge production alongside public.
Whatmore (2009)
Controversies stem from knowledge claims/ technologies that inform policies but become subject to public scrutiny. Such events have unsettled public trust in scientific experts and their relationship with policy makers. What to do? – need redistribution of expertise in face of uncertainty through a reconfiguration of scientific divisions of labour to address more inter- or trans-disciplinary objects of analysis and increased public engagement activities. A diversifying of the publics with whom scientists collaborate on matters that concern them. Contested knowledges+ public disputation= controversy
Khun (1962)
Scientific knowledge does not evolve linearly but proceeds within predominant paradigms that are created. Only after serious of anomalies build up then it undergoes a crises/revolution which then causes a shift and proceeds within a new paradigm
Waldron (1999)
‘The prospect of persisting disagreement must be regarded, I think, as one of the elementary conditions of modern politics’
Nowotny et al. (2001)
As cited in Whatmore (2009): this ‘mode 2’ regime is characterized by the replacement of disciplinary research agendas with interdisciplinary knowledge production in which expertise is distributed through a wide diversity of institutional sites, driven by a logic of instrumental service to public policy and/or commercial innovation and evaluated by a culture of societal accountability rather than scientific autonomy
Sarewitz (2004)
When sciences is called about to resolve political disputes it can worsen them. There is a notion and operating principle that science is object and mirrors reality and therefore can guide political decision making. The problem is you can compile scientifically legitimate facts for either side of an argument – create more controversy.
(Eden, 2005)
Environmental issues as a construct. Not to suggest that these problems are imaginary but how we go about understanding them is shaped by those who are the experts or claim makers
Callon et al. (2009)
hybrid forums, spaces opened up in the event of controversies that are capable of sparking debate, groups involved and the spokespersons claiming to represent them are heterogenous
Callon (1994)
The question of ‘how to make public science more public’ cannot be adequately addressed by how well science serves governmental or commercial agendas. Rather, as Callon suggested some time ago, it requires an expanded appreciation of the extraordinary capacity of science for invention ‘as a source of variety, according to the strategic configurations into which it enters’
Whatmore (2009)
Callon's 'hot situations' or Latour's 'matters of concern'= moments of ontological disturbance in which unexamined parts of material fabric of life become molten. Controversies= fields were expertise is redistributed. expert/lay relations change. mode 2 science: replace expert research agenda with interdisciplinary knowledge production alongside public.
Whatmore (2009)
Controversies stem from knowledge claims/ technologies that inform policies but become subject to public scrutiny. Such events have unsettled public trust in scientific experts and their relationship with policy makers. What to do? – need redistribution of expertise in face of uncertainty through a reconfiguration of scientific divisions of labour to address more inter- or trans-disciplinary objects of analysis and increased public engagement activities. A diversifying of the publics with whom scientists collaborate on matters that concern them. Contested knowledges+ public disputation= controversy
Khun (1962)
Scientific knowledge does not evolve linearly but proceeds within predominant paradigms that are created. Only after serious of anomalies build up then it undergoes a crises/revolution which then causes a shift and proceeds within a new paradigm
Waldron (1999)
‘The prospect of persisting disagreement must be regarded, I think, as one of the elementary conditions of modern politics’
Nowotny et al. (2001)
As cited in Whatmore (2009): this ‘mode 2’ regime is characterized by the replacement of disciplinary research agendas with interdisciplinary knowledge production in which expertise is distributed through a wide diversity of institutional sites, driven by a logic of instrumental service to public policy and/or commercial innovation and evaluated by a culture of societal accountability rather than scientific autonomy
Sarewitz (2004)
When sciences is called about to resolve political disputes it can worsen them. There is a notion and operating principle that science is object and mirrors reality and therefore can guide political decision making. The problem is you can compile scientifically legitimate facts for either side of an argument – create more controversy.
(Eden, 2005)
Environmental issues as a construct. Not to suggest that these problems are imaginary but how we go about understanding them is shaped by those who are the experts or claim makers
Shapin (1998)
The recognition that knowledge is created in specific geographical locations that inevitably have specific cultural context and specific societal influences. Additionally, the dissemination of knowledge travels through institutionalized and standardized ways: graphs, tables, journals. As Kuhn made evident, science changes in paradigm shifts as the scientific community reinforced similar ideas and resisted outside ones: “it was a variety of practices whose conceptual identities were the outcomes of local patterns of training and socialization… [you became] a competent member of the relevant scientific community by reading its texts and methodological pronouncements” The suggestion is that the wide distribution of scientific knowledge flows from the success of certain cultures in creating and spreading standardized contexts for making and applying that knowledge
Jasanoff (2006)
Experiments without borders are already occurring and implicating society from the very beginning. Need to think about how to inject public critique earlier into the design
Gabrys and Yusoff (2012)
The possible responses that emerge to address the complexities of climate change occur not just at the level of international governance, but most strikingly at multiple scales and levels of practice and experimentation. Within the scope of these collective experiments, it may be possible to pursue projects that reject quick fixes and slow down the speed of assumptions directed toward issues in order to develop generative politics and practices for addressing climate change. P 20
Whatmore (2009)
The overlapping interests in geography and STS in environmental knowledge controversies share at least three features in common: (1) a commitment to an ontological or more-than-human conception of knowledge practices and knowledge polities; (2) an interest in knowledge controversies as generative events in the socialization of scientific knowledge claims and technologies; and (3) a demonstrable investment in research practices that redistribute expertise, including that of social scientists. Three types of mapping knowledge controversies: partisan science, demoscience and competency groups
Hayden (2003)
Bioprospecting case study: Informed consent and community participation did not occur in Mexico, Maya people. New colonialism, also links to capitalism.
Latour
Demoscience- mapping controversies but not as actively changing it as much as CG
Collins and Evans (2007)
The speed of politics exceeds the speed of scientifc consensus formation-- links to policy relevance
Habermas (1976)
Deliberative democracy- beyond voting, real deliberation. Foucault etc counter this- underlying power
Barry (2002)
Experimentations happen throughout history, can use the frame of experimentation to talk about a lot of things e.g. politics, can say it’s particularly related to controversies, and things which are less settled, related to the nature of the thing it’s related to- come two ways: new technology which demands experimentation or look at tactics used by academics to push solid things into realm of controversies
Nichols (2014)
Death of expertise?
Wynne (1996)
Local knowledge may challenge expert knowledge claims
Sarewtiz (2004)
Changing notion that science is no longer partisan on both sides of environmental controversies
Callon (1998)
Economy, market and capitalism are not autonomous, pre-given domains of society; Rather, economic realities are brought into being by neoclassical economic theory and academic economists. Ecominc expertise has resistance from both human and nonhumman actants
Callon (1998)
Cold negotiations – the possible world states are already known or easy to identify: calculated decisions can be taken; Hot negotiations – everything is up for grabs, certain groups might try to make calculations but the basis for those calculations may be called into question
Muniesa and Callon (2007)
distinguish between economic experiments run in vitro, that is, in a laboratory, and experiments run in vivo, that is, in scale-one real markets. In vivo and in vitro are kept apart but studies in innovation have shown that the absence of exchange is particularly harmful to innovation dynamic
Kama (2014)
Expertise and politics are supposed to be separate domains with the former consulting the latter i.e. evidence based policy, technocractic governance and intellectual fundamentalism
Barry (2002)
Rather than closing down controversies the formation of expertise generates new objects of disagreement and public debates- BTC pipe line
Barry (2013)
Knowledge claims are perfomative they intervene in and bring int existence the objects and realities that they purport to observe at a distance. Blurs line between professional politics and expertise
Castree (2003)
processes of capitalist commodification are not indifferent to the nature being commodified
Bakker (2009)
She argues that the processes of neoliberlization of natures is often talked about as a homogenous process; rather, neoliberalism unfolds through a range of strategies (privatization, market-mechanisms, etc.) and which strategies is applied depends on the socio-nature targeted and on the social/cultural contexts. While natures, socio-natures, and the environment cant be simplified as well; must recognize non-human agencies, diverse material and biophysical properties. Must appreciate how neoliberlization strategies are co-produced by certain socio-natures - not only because of their different biophysical characteristics, but also because of their articulation with labour practices, consumption processes, and affective relationships. Therefore, understanding how certain strategies within certain contexts unfold and how effective they are, and for who, at managing socio-natures allows us conduct comparative analysis and better understand the varied implications of neoliberal natures.
O’Connor (1988)
Capitalism’s two contradictions: 1) It destroys the labour force upon which it relies on through technology and exploitation thus eliminating its own market 2) destroys the material conditions – the environment - that which it relies on for production
Castree (2006)
Dialectics: A dynamic two way relationship of mutual influence and adjusment
Smith (1984; 1991)
Material production of nature: Capitalism causes environmental degradation by over exploitation; conservation by dispossession- makes land in terms of territory and sovereignty; nature as a commodity; nature as an accumulation strategy- carbon market, Monsanto
Castree (2006)
Capitalism turns first natures into second natures via metabolism. Allienation- we are beoming further away from modes of production and environment, lost touch through economic and tangible ways
Castree (2002)
PE and ANT are false antithesis. Proposes more modest green Marxism: Socionatural realtions are pervasively capital, structured and enduring- driven by social actions and relations (mediated by nonhuman actants); capital is not an all-powerful global force (G-G, 2006); capital is a process of diverse local, national, and global activities which produce value; capitalism as a particuarly enduring actor-network
Brown and Purcell (2005)
Adding morethanhuman agency tAmazon development: Argues primarily that PE needs to focus onn scale more, scale is socially. produced not ontologically given, 'local trap', ignored the agency of the coffee plant etc.
Swyngedouw (2000)
Transformation of nature is a fundamental aspect of capital accumulation
Crosby (1986)
During the conquest of the 'New World', the agency of viruss and European animals contrributed to the success of the colonial project
Kaika and Swyngedouw (2000)
Technology networks are the mediators between nature and the city, we forget the social transformations (nature metablished by human labour to give form to the city) until a pipe bursts or the city floods.
Castree (2006)
Capitalism is an ecologically irrational system that generates environmental problems as part of its normal functioning
Contradictions of capitalism (O'Conner, 1998)
First: destroys own labour force through exploitation, second destroys material conditions for production
Boucher (1991)
The moral, then, is that ecology is neither a complete science or an irrational mysticism, but an analysis which is both useful and incomplete. Ecological rationality is not something fixed by natural science, independent of human society. Rather, it depends on the social and economic relationships of people to each other and to the earth at each particular point in history. What Marxism gives ecology is the recognition that the possibilities of living in harmony with nature depend on the structures of power.
Smith (2007)
Biodiversity credits may leave various Amazonian habitats intact, for example, but the intensified poverty of local inhabitants often leads to significant, if not accelerated environmental degradation anyway
Peet et al., (2011)
In the classic example of soil degradation, political ecology asks why farmers behave the way they do, depleting soils of nutrients by using the land in a heavy exploitative fashion. “The logic of the market shapes the imperatives of producers, and so into the land: the rural poor may find themselves in a position that they must work harder and longer and exploit their resources to the maximum as prices fal
Gibson-Graham (2008)
Capitalism itself can be a site of difference, need to de-essentialise capitalism
Porter and Van Lindel (1995)
Profit and environment go hand in hand
Liverman 2004)
TBL
Barry (2013)
When controversies stem from materials, those material things are not incidental or passive but are integral to their contestation. Materialsshould be considered not simply as the basis upon which contestation and politics occur, but as integral to them. The material properties of things can often be disregarded as stable foundations upon which contestation occurs.
Gareau (2006)
ANT makes two mistakes: 1) it dismisses Marxism for positing a rigid society-nature dualism; and 2) thereby assumes that relational Marxisms have no role to play in the development of alternative economic theories to neoliberalism
Pickering (1995)
Human actors are no longer viewed as central- gives nonhumans agency and is better than aNT as it focuses more on the struggle over power of making a difference
Callon (1998)
Temporal emergence of human-non-human interactions
Latour (1999)
ANT- inherent reluctance of nonhumans to behave as humans desire
Latour (2005)
Materiality and sociality are co-produced, material are relations and contigent 'network effects' of interactions between actants
Mol and Law (2002)
Four key elements of ANT: 1. Challenging N/S, 2. Constructivist and descriptive, method not theory; 3, agency is a property of associations and relations; 4. things are not pregiven, stuff is emergent
Anderson 2010
NR is the attempt to invent new ways of addressing issues by multiplying entities, actors, forces. Meaning of things come less from place in symbolic, structured world (like social construction), and more from their enactment in contingent context. Therefore, the root of action is not in thought, but embodied and environmental habits/ dispositions/interactions.
Guattari (2000)
Anything is possible- the worst disasters or the most flexible evolutions. Everything has agency, neovitalism is pretty good, emergence is everywhere (the process of coming into existence or prominence)
Bennett (2004)
Thngs, materials, ecologies and geologies shape (but don't determine) social life, concerned with process than forms- ontology of immanence/becoming
Bansel and Know-Hayes (2013)
Carbon marketisation, autonomous carbon. Carbon markets need to consider materiality. Time-space compression disrupts cycles of the natural environment. Interviewees acknowledge that carbon markets haveattracted new capital and accelerated capital turnover. Yet they either do not believe or merelyassume that carbon markets are creating real carbon reductions or achieving positive, materialenvironmental impacts.
Bakker and Bridge (2006)
Agency in ANT is reltional- not a property inhenrent in discrete entities, so does it really add agency?
Bennett 2010
Thing power: the curious ability of inaminate things to animate, to act, to produce effects.

Bennett 2010

Vital materialism: there might be a difference between human and material, but there is no need to describe differences by place humans at ontological center
Barry 2010
metallurgists are good materialists- they realise that materials can produce own affects and resist external forces. ie: BTC pipeline- coating bad= stubborn fact= cannot be explained away via politics
Zimmerman (1933)
“Resources are not, they become” - ie. Resources are not discreet natural things that are stumbled upon but are a relational and social category where a resource can slip in and out of this category as human demands and technologies change.
Le Billon (2001)
The location, concentration, and ‘lootability’ of extractive resources imply distinct forms of conflict in resource-dependent societies - alluvual diamonds are easy to extract (near the surface) so have often been used to fund rebel movements and civil conflict in Africa ie. blood diamonds (watch out dont be deterministic yo!)
Bakker (2005)
Water as a ‘flow resource’ is an ‘uncooperative commodity’ - is a recalcitrant non-human nature which often resists full privitazion
Smith 1984
Attempts to cross nature/society divide by proving that nature is socially produced/an artifact of capitalism.
Smith 1991
Capitalism produces second natures from first natures through “metabolism” – which involves a dialectic approach between humans and natures via labour processes – The character of second natures reflect the political economic conditions of their production
Smith 2007
Nature is no longer just an artifact/input of capitalism, but an aim/ the marketisation of nature is crucial for capitalism to continue. ie: wetland conservation. carbon.
Demeritt 2002
construction as refutation: there are no essential properties of anything because they are all socially constructed. this means we can change everything!
Anderson 2010
social construction looks to how the symbolic orders of social realie selves in teh distribution of meaning and value, and thereby reinforce the unequal distribution of goods/power. BAD: seperates world from meaning, leaving no sense of how meanings/values can emerge from events.
Baudrillard (1991)
Simulation is the link between representation and reality through mediated experience of reality – TV, film etc - hyper-reality is exhibited through simulations – people watching the Gulf War saw a simulated media construction that replicated preceding representations of Arabs and the Middle East
Bingham and Hinchcliffe (2008)
Multiple forms of expertise and authority
Deleuze
Attempted to rethink the ground, an unstable, mutable, tranformative, doesn't provide any anchoring, certainty or unity
Smith (1984)
Nature is so modified by socio-technical process it can no longer provide an external platform, transformed out of existience
Anderson and Braun (2008)
Politcs and the environment are inseprable, multiplicty of answers and questions
Hinchliffe and Whatmore (2006)
The heterogenity of living cities: cities are inhabited with and against their desgin' cities are co-habited, multiple, engtangled and disrupt established ethologies and ecologies; engaging with these inhabitants and becomings requires political and scientific experiments
Stengers (2010)
Beings that were excluded as speculative make their comeback, and we no longer have the appetite or the criteria of the censor to keep them at bay. Natures are not objects for positive, factual knowledge
Latour (1988)
Relationism- acceptance that things are emergent, formed part of each other, no Nature
Lorimer (2012)
Critics of multnaturalism argue it plays into hands of neo-liberal captitalism, flexibility, change and market. How do we judge good ecological systems if we don't have a fixed idea of nature
Blok (2011)
Performativity analysts of carbon markets disagree as to whether we are witnessing the impossible imposition of a technocratic market idealogy or rudiments of new civilised markets
Callon (2007)
Markets trigger the emergence of 'matters of concern' to which they may not provide satisfactory answers
Callon (2009)
Markets can do nothing about income inequalities- they are not the best solution to guarantee everyone's access to certain goods