Experience Distributed in the Biodiversity Science-Base

Critics of biodiversity science and environmental governance point to exclusion and absence of diverse experience from science-based governance, sometimes effectively dividing domains of science and experience/values. This paper, following an alternate line of thought drawn from John Dewey’s Nature and Experience, analyses a series of scientific publications on biodiversity from 1989-2020. It argues that experience abundantly populates the biodiversity science-base, although in highly distributed forms. Dewey’s account suggests that knowledge of biodiversity derives from an unanalyzed continuum of experience. Reading the publications as traces of occurrences of encounters preceding, accompanying, and sometimes deriving from knowledge, the paper locates and characterises differentiated, sometimes impersonal gradients of experience, developing a figurative model of distributed biodiversity experience. It concludes that experiential diversity occurs widely in the science-base, but communication of and participation in this experience is frequently marginalised by the primacy of knowing.

(Not) Knowing and (Not) Caring About Animal Research

Animal research remains a practice marked by controversy and moral dilemma. However, UK science-society dialogues on the issue are increasingly managed via one-way transmissions of information which construct publics as passive and attribute their concerns to a lack of ‘correct’ knowledge. Challenging such assumptions, this paper questions how and why people actively manage their interactions with animal research through entangled practices of knowing and caring. Based on an analysis of writing from the UK Mass Observation Project, this paper explores difficulties and discomforts associated with animal research which can cause strategic withdrawals from engagements with the topic. In doing so, it extends existing concepts of ‘uncomfortable knowledge’ (Rayner) and ‘strategic ignorance’ (McGoey) to develop novel concepts of ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘strategic’ care. Finally, in examining desires to respond to animal research, I engage with Haraway’s notion of ‘response-ability’ to introduce the concepts of ‘responsive caring’ and ‘responsive knowing’

Insect Affects

With increasing interest in citizen science, this paper discusses how amateur naturalism, especially amateur entomology, is placed within citizen science discourses. Through a case study of amateur entomology in Finland, the paper discusses amateurs' diverse motivations for engaging with nature. The paper discusses especially the affective and ethical aspects of amateur entomology and its implications for citizen science. The discussion is based on an ethnographic study of an entomologist society. The paper suggests that amateur naturalism cannot be reduced to any single definition of citizen science, but amateur entomologists enact different epistemologies as knowledge producers and active citizens. The amateurs are often motivated by an ethical 'first contract' with nature. The rich amateur culture may democratize and 're-enchanting' science, provided the scientist worldview of superior data is not allowed to conceal the diversity of amateur motivations.

Building Bridges

This paper discusses three recent book publications devoted to a detailed description and reflection of methodology. These are three different contributions that focus on different disciplinary approaches to STS methods: sociology (via Meier zu Verl's monograph "Daten-Karrieren und epistemische Materialität" [Data Careers and Epistemic Materiality]), cultural anthropology (represented by Estalella's and Criado's edited volume "Experimental Collaborations") and, across these discussions, an interdisciplinary lens (brought in by Wiedmann et al.'s "Wie forschen mit den' Science and Technology Studies'?" [How to do research with 'Science and Technology Studies'?]). Based on these publications, a transformation of STS method reflection can be traced. We have now arrived at the gratifying state that the methods literature aims to build bridges to mediate between methodological ideals on the one hand and research realities on the other. At the same time, the field creatively reflects on the diverse effects of STS method practices.

Data, Methods and Writing

Methods have been recognised in STS as mattering for a long time. STS ethnographies establish a boundary object with which STS scholars weave a pattern: From such ethnographic accounts we learn that knowledge is produced locally. Ethnography has over the recent decades been highlighted as a key method in STS. And that STS ethnography is specifically shaped by being often configured to consider its forms of collaboration or intervention in the field. This special issue focuses on how methods matter, specifically on how STS ethnographic collaboration and its data are translated into ethnographic writing, or performative of other reality effects. Exploring STS’s own methods-in-action brings to attention the messy landscape of method practice. Our objective in this exploration is to develop a genre of writing about method that fosters response-ability and enables the audience of research output to position themselves between the research materials and practices that were invested into the study. This special issue hopes to contribute to STS engagement with its methods by way of methodography. Methodography serves as a genre of analytic writing, that articulates specificity and scrutinises the situated practices of producing STS knowledge.

Why do Environmental and Ecological Economics Diverge?

Environmental economics and ecological economics became established scientific fields as a result of the growth and the success of the environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Using the strong programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge and the general theory of scientific/intellectual movements, this article compares four pairs of scholars (two pairs of scholars appropriated for these fields and fields' founders during the emergence and establishment of the fields). The article depicts how their institutional, ideological and scientific backgrounds contributed to the divergence of these fields. Practitioners of environmental economics and ecological economics were influenced by different strands of the environmental movement. Environmental economics has epistemological and institutional links with environmentalism and ecological economics with ecologism. Different types of interdisciplinarity were used in these fields—a bridge building type of interdisciplinarity in the case of environmental economics and a restructuring and integrative in the case of ecological economics.

Imagining Citizens as More than Data Subjects

The article presents a methodography of a collaborative design workshop conducted with national and international statisticians. The workshop was part of an ethnographic research project on innovation in European official statistics. It aimed to bring academic researchers and statisticians together to collaborate on the design of app prototypes that imagine citizens as co-producers of official statistics rather than only data subjects. However, the objective was not to settle on an end product but to see if relations to citizens could be re-imagined. Through a methodography composed of two ethnographic narratives, we analyse whether and how a collaborative design workshop brought about imaginings of citizens as co-producers. To retrospectively analyse the workshop, we draw on feminist and material-semiotic takes on ‘friction’ as characteristic of collaboration. ‘Friction’, we suggest, can enlarge the repertoire of collaborative speculative practice beyond notions of rupture or consensus. Finally, we suggest that this analysis demonstrates the potential of methodography for opening up and reflecting on method in STS through eliciting the possibilities of collaboration.

The Mutual Enablement of Research Data and Care

Public health research depends on access to population data. This article is a study of the practices and the work enabling data collection for public health research. In Denmark, a blood sample is taken from practically every single newborn baby through a national screening programme. These samples can be combined with other health data and used for research purposes without explicit consent from those giving the samples. With an ethnographic approach, I study the practices, the work and the workers of the Danish NDBS samples, and explore how newborn babies come to serve as an important national research resource. From these studies, I argue that the making of national research resources in this way is ‘mutual enablement’ of research data and care. The work of both health professionals and researchers mutually enables professional care and opportunities for collection of samples and data for research. It is through this mutual enablement of research data and care that newborn babies become a national research population.