After the As the first in an occasional series of “Compass” podcasts, we were honored that Matt’s presentation was able to generate some laughter from them (you will find their recap of Matt’s talk at 15:30 about our work in Futures and Foresight Conference in Warwick in December, three members from the Association of Professional Futurists (APF), Andrew Curry, Wendy Schultz, and Tanja Hichert, sat down and recollected their takeaways and highlights from the conference and recorded it as a podcast. this paper, this one, and this one). Perhaps readers of Installing Order would like to contribute some podcast material in the future (!?) — we would be happy to put it on the blog.
Posted in Events, Future, Guest Blogger, International, Methods, Professional Society, sociology, STS, STS Gossip, The Profession, Theory, Uncategorized |
Tagged Andrew Curry, Futures and Foresight Conference, Tanja Hichert, Warwick, Wendy Shultz |
The blog is making some big changes in 2019:
a new resident blogger, of Matthew Spaniol Aarhus University in Denmark; he’s a specialist in futures studies at a school of management. He writes about scenario planning, reports from conferences about futures and the future, and also has helped to kick-off a new section in the blog about Teaching Futures Studies. Our
long-time blogger is heading to Australia for a new post and is planning to rekindle her central role in the blog by, in concert with Matthew and I, creating Stef Fishel a new 3:1 series, based on for the year devoted to our past 3:1 series and the 3:1 concept, “The Future of [Fill-in the blank],” wherein we will discuss various topics of relevance through the lens of the future. She takes the STS lens with her to the world of international studies and international relations, among other places, and has contributed to great discussions on “ planetary politics,” has a great book “ The Microbial State” (a few free pages here), and has discussed a number of issues including a personal favorite invoking “the cabinet of curiosities” to IR and STS.
I, will continue to host the blog, invite Nicholas Rowland, for my part, our guests to join us on the blog and especially for future 3:1 post-sets, curate our reading list, and, of course, keep writing with Matthew on scenario planning and the future from an STS perspective (e.g., continue our work on planning paradoxes, the ontology of the future, and any other way we can use STS to study Futures Studies).
Cheers and Happy New Year!
* image from: http://www.walkwithgod.org/where-am-i-going/
Posted in 3-1, Future, Guest Blogger, International, sociology, STS, STS Gossip, Teaching, The State Multiple, Theory |
Tagged 2019, Aarhus University, Cabinet of Curiosities, Denmark, Futures Studies, Happy New Year, Ontology, Planetary Politics, The Microbial State |
long-time collaborator, and now co-blogger, about our recent paper that free and available here. Matthew Spaniol, just released a video The video is called “Defining Scenario” and is available in a short, quick version ( here) and a detailed, extended version ( here).
Available here and also Review_of_Capitalization (from S&TS in 2017).
* image from: https://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/turning-time-money-forecasting-production-costs
Planning practices — strategic planning, scenario planning, and the like — have taken firm root in both the public and private sector. Governments roll-out security scenarios. For-profit firms establish short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategic plans. More and more; on and on, the planning seems never to stop in our postmodern age.
Most folks are, thus, rightly surprised to find out that scholars typically do not know why planning processes work or, when they fail, why. The reasons are deep-seated and my co-author ( Matthew Spaniol) and I ( Nicholas Rowland) tackle a few of them in our new paper “ the scenario planning paradox,” which builds on some of our previous work about multiplicitous notions of “the future” and plural “futures” as well as the social practices associated with the process of scenario planning in the first place. Below is the abstract and link to the planning paradox paper:
Posted in Corporation, Future, Government, Methods, Pragmatism, sociology, STS, Theory, Uncategorized |
Tagged 2x2, Scenario, Scenario Planning, Strategic Planning |
“ With ‘ ‘Blade Runner’s’ chillingly prescient vision of the future” offers a (brief) review of the 1982 Ridley Scott film and how much 2017 appears to reflect Scott’s portrayal of the human-machine interface. Blade Runner 2049‘ coming out soon (today, I think), the short piece is a nice opportunity to return to the 1982 now-classic film.
As a sidebar: In terms of visions of the future,
it is always interesting to me that “vision of the future” is characterized here as “look, Scott got it more right than he might have known;” however, his view of the future, a strict prognostication or even foresight, is not really consistent with the academic study of the future (not that the author of this piece should be held to that standard). On balance, there are “ethnographers of the future” looking into science fiction too, but there is also a growing linkage between STS and a small world called futures studies, ontological research on the character of the future as a concept, and even scholars that do not owe much of their intellectual heritage to either tradition making serious headway into managing multiple futures. Getting past “visions of the future made in the past were right or wrong” as a framework might make for some interesting discussion in the public media realm, provided readers want something past the all-too-easy “they got it right!” or “ha! They botched it” critiques leveled safely from the sidelines in retrospect.
Posted in Corporation, Decay, Film, Future, Government, sociology, STS, STS Gossip, Uncategorized |
Tagged Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049, Ridley Scott |
It is bad to demand the retraction non-fraudulent papers. But why? I think the argument rests on three intuitions. First, there is a legal reason. When an editor and publisher accept a paper, they enter into a legal contract. The authors produces the paper and the publisher agrees to publish. To rescind publication of a […]
Dovetails with concerns over
peer review in general, related horror stories, and even the outer limits of the practice.
why is it bad to retract non-fraudulent and non-erroneous papers? — orgtheory.net
* image from
We are living in a time of intellectual fights. As STSers, we sometimes feel like being pushed back into the 1990s, only that the strange debates we had back then on
“Science as Practice and Culture” have made it onto the streets and into mainstream media. Sure, we have expressed many times that we love science and love technology and today we join (and even practically and intellectually lead) the “march for science”. But the shortcut “post…” -> “relativism” -> “danger” seems to be still in place. A recent piece on HOW FRENCH “INTELLECTUALS” RUINED THE WEST: POSTMODERNISM AND ITS IMPACT, EXPLAINED argued for that – again. We’ve written about postmodernism many times, even in a 1, 2, 3 set of posts, so there is – intellectually – not a lot to add to that nonsense. But maybe it is time to take that, well, personal again: If that attitude is still a guidance for the modern, for the west, maybe we should have ruined it when we had the chance. Or, if that sounds too offended, why we obviously never had the chance to do so.
A student of mine said something last week that gave me déjà vu. We completed our lessons on “social class” and the student was having difficulty with the notion of cultural capital.
In class, waving an iPhone in the air, s/he said:
“Why would anybody need to know this when you have the whole world’s knowledge in your pocket?”
The student was referring to the ability to command cultural knowledge (i.e., cultural capital).
Reminded me of this immediately: And a student said “Ah, so like, people with cultural capital don’t need Google…ohhhh, I get it”