Dear colleagues,
<br>
<br>
<br>this is a call for papers for an upcoming special issue on “Ethnographic
<br>data generation in STS collaboration” in /Science & Technology Studies/
<br>to be published in early 2021 (online first earlier) and co-edited by
<br>Ingmar Lippert and Julie Sascia Mewes. We welcome extended abstracts by
<br>the end of April.
<br>
<br>Please find the full project here:
<br>https://www.researchgate.net/project/Methodography-of-STS-ethnographyand
<br>the call at
<br>https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/announcement/view/232
<br>
<br>Background paper to the SI: "Doing Data": Methodography in and of STS
<br>,
<br>published in EASST Review 38(1), 2019.
<br>
<br>
<br> Call for Papers: Special Issue on “Ethnographic data generation in STS
<br> collaboration”
<br>
<br>*INTRODUCTION*
<br>
<br>STS scholars frequently engage in collaborative research, as groups of
<br>STS scholars as much as in collaborations with colleagues in other
<br>fields or non-academics. This SI explores how ethnographic data is
<br>generated and transformed for STS analysis in a range of such
<br>collaborative contexts. The special issues (SI) aims to lead beyond
<br>reflexivity accounts of positionality in STS ethnography and establish
<br>a benchmark for the STS ethnographic study of how ethnographic
<br>collaboration configures its data.
<br>
<br>This focus recognises that STS now build on and critically engage with a
<br>tradition of carefully scrutinising how scientists pursue their
<br>research – in the field, the laboratory, at desks and conferences.
<br>Recognising that textbooks' presentations of methods cannot be mirrored
<br>in their "applications" or "implementations", STS have questioned how to
<br>author STS accounts "after method"; and we may attend to "inventive
<br>methods" to pay attention to the various material and semiotic tools and
<br>devices (a) that configure research objects and (b) through which the
<br>researcher's data are achieved. Enacting our own STS ethnography's data
<br>involves a range of performances of "decisions", explicit and implicit
<br>assumptions and politico-normative inscriptions, contingent unfoldings
<br>and clashes with, potentially unruly, humans and non-humans; we have to
<br>"manage" our data as much as our relations within the research assemblages.
<br>
<br>Interestingly, however, STS have not yet developed a strong tradition
<br>for studying how our own collaborations are shaping the generation and
<br>transformation of our ethnographic data. The SI focuses on studying the
<br>relation between collaboration, ethnography and its data as it is
<br>configured in negotiations of different worlds, in collaborations across
<br>difference between researchers and other actants within their research
<br>assemblages. Who and what is accountable to what else and in what way in
<br>assembling researchers, our partners, subjects, objects, our devices and
<br>our data? How do these relations shape and effect not only data but also
<br>the objects we study? Ethnographically describing and analysing our
<br>method's data practices – this we call methodography. We deem developing
<br>and showcasing methodography a significant contribution to our field
<br>because this promises to equip STS not only with a resource that
<br>ethnograpically working STS scholars can well draw on to analyse their
<br>own method choices but also because this proposed SI performs
<br>exercising a genre, or a language, for presenting and telling such
<br>analyses.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>*TIMELINE*
<br>
<br>by 22^nd April 2019 For book review essays
<br>,
<br>submit an /Outline/ of the review that (a) identifies candidate books,
<br>events, etc that the review essay would cover and (b) explains, in 300
<br>words, how this selection of review items will contribute to this CfP
<br>to Ingmar Lippert via ilip@itu.dk
<br>
<br>by 30^th April 2019 For research and discussion papers
<br>,
<br>submit /Extended Abstract/ of max 1,000 words (not including
<br>references) that details (a) the empirical object of analysis; (b) the
<br>methods employed to learn about this object (e.g. participant
<br>observation, historiography, open-ended interviews, …); (c) the
<br>analytical apparatus employed and (d) on outline of the argument to
<br>Julie Sascia Mewes via mewes@tu-berlin.de
<br>
<br>31^st May 2019 /Decision/ by guest editors about
<br>invitation for manuscript submission to the journal’s standard double
<br>blind peer review process.
<br>
<br>by 30^th September 2019 /Submit manuscript/ to mewes@tu-berlin.de,
<br>for review by guest editors.
<br>
<br>by 30^th November 2019 /Submit manuscript/ via Journal website
<br>.
<br>Publication after double-blind peer review process and manuscript
<br>acceptance with DOI and online first.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Please do not hesitate to contact us regarding further questions.
<br>
<br>
<br>Best,
<br>
<br>Julie Mewes & Ingmar Lippert
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>EASST's Eurograd mailing list
<br>Eurograd (at) lists.easst.net
<br>Unsubscribe or edit subscription options: http://lists.easst.net/listinfo.cgi/eurograd-easst.net
<br>
<br>Meet us via https://twitter.com/STSeasst
<br>
<br>Report abuses of this list to Eurograd-owner@lists.easst.net
view formatted text
