{"id":264,"date":"2016-09-16T15:51:04","date_gmt":"2016-09-16T19:51:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatecommonsblog.wordpress.com\/?p=264"},"modified":"2017-03-10T12:45:50","modified_gmt":"2017-03-10T17:45:50","slug":"call-for-papers-association-of-american-geographers-annual-meeting-data-infrastructures-nature-and-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/climatecommons\/2016\/call-for-papers-association-of-american-geographers-annual-meeting-data-infrastructures-nature-and-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"Call for Papers: Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting – Data Infrastructures, Nature, and Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"

Organizers: Eric Nost (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Jenny Goldstein (Cornell University)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Discussant: Luke Bergmann (University of Washington) <\/strong><\/p>\n

Date and location: April 5-7 2017, Boston, MA<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conservationists around the world are turning to new data collection, modeling, and visualization software they believe may help \u201csave the planet\u201d. For some conservationists, data paucity and irregularity may constrain environment governance more than political will, capacity, or legitimacy (e.g. Hsu et al. 2012). At the same time, corporations are developing new software for intensifying resource extraction or managing their use of ecosystem services. In both cases, as actors extend their use of new digital tools and grapple with big data, they run up against the social and technical limits of existing data management platforms, standards, and institutions \u2013 the data infrastructure. This session explores the making and un-making of data infrastructures by which conservationists and corporations – as well as development practitioners, scientists, and state planners – generate scaled, uneven, and actionable knowledge about the environment. In particular, we are interested in: contestation around data infrastructures that respond to or remake material environments; performative effects and surprising failures of data infrastructures (Bowker 2000); and the conditions under which technical approaches can further \u201cappropriate,\u201d just outcomes instead of re-entrenching state and capitalist power (Fortun 2004).<\/p>\n

Political ecologists have shown how economic forces and institutional cultures shape who is called upon to make environmental science, which perspectives are deemed legitimate, and the values and interests characterizing this knowledge. But as STS scholars have argued, knowledge production relies on sociotechnical infrastructures–proprietary and open source devices, embodied practices, and social institutions–that are variously ubiquitous but transparent, learned but reliable (Edwards 2007). While political ecologists have shown how environmental science generated with digital tools like GIS and remote sensing drives particular land management policies (Robbins 2001; Turner 2003), we aim to characterize the broader infrastructures supporting the use of these tools and how these infrastructures themselves are sources of contested policy and material change. Although much recent political ecological work on infrastructure has focused on tangible systems, we seek to apply insights from this work to digital infrastructure, with the help of research from STS and geographies of technology (Wilson 2011; Leszczynski 2012, Ash et al. 2015) to better understand the new social relations, regimes of governance, and natures brought about by changes in the management of environmental data. Work from developing world cases is especially encouraged.<\/p>\n

We are particularly interested in presenters who address one or more of the following:<\/p>\n