Papers by Nina Amelung
Racism and Racial Surveillance, 2021
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
a workshop entitled ‘How can STS help to re ect on the political crisis associated with migrants,... more a workshop entitled ‘How can STS help to re ect on the political crisis associated with migrants, refugees and asylum seekers?’ An international group of scholars from STS, migration and border studies met to explore the bene ts and limitations of using the analytical and methodological repertoire of STS to understand the ongoing political and social migration crises. Here, the organizers and participants write together and argue that it is necessary to tap into the full potential of STS as science and intervention to contribute to engaging with the sociotechnical and epistemic aspects of forced migration and displacement, resettlement, (re)integration, inclusion and related debates and practices.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
We reconstruct the innovation journey of ‘citizen panels’, as a family of participation methods, ... more We reconstruct the innovation journey of ‘citizen panels’, as a family of participation methods, over four decades and across different sites of development and application. A process of aggregation leads from local practices of designing participatory procedures like the citizens jury, planning cell, or consensus conference in the 1970s and 1980s, to the disembedding and proliferation of procedural formats in the 1990s, and into the trans-local consolidation of participatory practices through laboratory-based expertise since about 2000. Our account highlights a central irony: anti-technocratic engagements with governance gave birth to efforts at establishing technoscientific control over questions of political procedure. But such efforts have been met with various forms of reflexive engagement that draw out implications and turn design questions back into matters of concern. An emerging informal assessment regime for technologies of participation as yet prevents closure on one dominant global design for democracy beyond the state.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
We reconstruct the innovation journey of ‘citizen panels’, as a family of participation methods, ... more We reconstruct the innovation journey of ‘citizen panels’, as a family of participation methods, over four decades and across different sites of development and application. A process of aggregation leads from local practices of designing participatory procedures like the citizens jury, planning
cell, or consensus conference in the 1970s and 1980s, to the disembedding and proliferation of procedural formats in the 1990s, and into the trans-local consolidation of participatory practices through laboratory-based expertise since about 2000. Our account highlights a central irony: anti-technocratic engagements with governance gave birth to efforts at establishing technoscientific control over questions of political procedure. But such efforts have been met with various forms
of reflexive engagement that draw out implications and turn design questions back into matters of concern. An emerging informal assessment regime for technologies of participation as yet prevents closure on one dominant global design for democracy beyond the state.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
A report based on an interactive, anticipatory assessment of the dynamics of governance instrumen... more A report based on an interactive, anticipatory assessment of the dynamics of governance instruments, 19 April 2013.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Die Soziolog/innen-Initiative „Für gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft“ setzt sich für ein entspreche... more Die Soziolog/innen-Initiative „Für gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft“ setzt sich für ein entsprechendes Engagement ihrer Fachgesellschaft und für die Repräsentation des Mittelbaus in deren Gremien ein. Im Aufsatz werden die Ziele und bisherigen Erfolge der Gruppe dargestellt, die schon Mittelbau und wissenschaftlichen "Nachwuchs" diverser anderer Fachgesellschaften zum Nachahmen angeregt haben.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This short conference paper focuses on translation processes of science museums enacting ... more This short conference paper focuses on translation processes of science museums enacting participatory devices, and investigates whether science museums as
classical science communication providers have a particular approach to public engagement and participation. The case study of one of the few existing transnational
citizen deliberation cases, the World Wide Views on Biodiversity (WWVB), provides insights into how local organizers
– staff from science museums at selected national
sites – enacted and shaped the implementation of a pre-
defined participatory format.
In: Stengler, E. (2015) Studying Science Communication.
Bristol: Science Communication Unit. ISBN 9781860435225
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Nachhaltige Entwicklung - ein Konzept, das viel diskutiert wird, häufig aber noch recht allgemein... more Nachhaltige Entwicklung - ein Konzept, das viel diskutiert wird, häufig aber noch recht allgemein und unbestimmt bleibt. Im Kern geht es darum, wie wir den globalen Umwelt- und Entwicklungsproblemen wirksam begegnen können. Dies beinhaltet den Anspruch, globale ökologische, soziale und ökonomische Fragen integriert zu behandeln und allen heute lebenden Menschen sowie künftigen Generationen die gleichen Lebenschancen zu ermöglichen. Der Sammelband stellt eine Momentaufnahme der aktuellen Diskussionen dar. Renommierte WissenschaftlerInnen und Fachleute aus der Praxis konkretisieren das Leitbild Nachhaltige Entwicklung für einzelne Handlungsfelder, gehen auf relevante Akteure und Steuerungsinstrumente ein und stellen Modellprojekte Nachhaltiger Entwicklung vor. Die Lektüre ist für Einsteiger und Fortgeschrittene geeignet.
01/2008; Peter Lang Verlag., ISBN: 978-3-631-54436-5
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
A report based on an interactive, anticipatory assessment of the dynamics of governance instrumen... more A report based on an interactive, anticipatory assessment of the dynamics of governance instruments, 26 April 2013
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
A report based on an interactive, anticipatory assessment of the dynamics of governance instrumen... more A report based on an interactive, anticipatory assessment of the dynamics of governance instruments, 19 April 2013
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
“Doing STS – within academia and beyond” was the theme of the pre-conference doctoral workshop at... more “Doing STS – within academia and beyond” was the theme of the pre-conference doctoral workshop at this year’s EASST conference. The article begins with introducing theoretical perspectives of STS scholars and theirs visions of doing STS in order to reflect on the workshop theme in the context of inspirations from the scholarship itself. Furthermore, selected concerns of participants are addressed such as the interaction with the empirical field, communicating STS research and the demands of the job market. The article ends with examples of good practices of doing STS presented in the workshop and encourages to take the ideal of “avant-garde” as a stimulus for doing STS.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Introduction The transnational standardization of public engagement models is a recent phenomenon... more Introduction The transnational standardization of public engagement models is a recent phenomenon that emerged in the mid-2000s. It refers to the increasing proliferation of ready-made formats of citizen involvement across diverse localities. In this paper, I argue that such standardization involves a struggle between designs that create globalized homogenization and the diversities of local practice, due to heterogeneous culture, resources and political situations. I investigate the empirical case of the WWViews on Biodiversity. This event encompassed a standardized citizen participation format implemented in a synchronized manner at multiple sites in 2012, which assembled citizens’ views on global biodiversity and related policy options. Initiated by a network of civil society organizations, it addressed the COP 11 of the CBD. Using this case, I elaborate on the tensions that emerge from a global ready-made design for public engagement and its multiple applications in heterogeneous local contexts. The global design for public engagement aims to coordinate across multiple sites, thus creating tension at mini-publics in diverse contexts in various countries. This tension arises from the push for these locales to become ‘the same’ public by aggregating ‘worldwide views’ – in spite of different local conditions such as cultural conditions (for instance in Islamic cultures where the participation of women is only allowed when they are accompanied by men), or organizational capacities (for instance when local organizers have to work under limited financial resources) and preferences for public participation (for instance when organizers’ visions range from empowerment of disadvantaged persons to demonstrating pluralistic views within society). The constraints of standardization and the framework-design de facto shape the structure for interaction and the roles of different actors involved in the international setting. However, it turns out that the different localities – in the paper presented with the implementation sites in the US and in Germany – do not become ‘the same.’ Rather, a pre-formulated design is implemented and translated on a local level by adapting, rejecting or modifying the design rules in situated practice. For this paper, two research interests take precedence: First, the investigation of the work relationship between standard setters and standard adopters within the process of implementation. Second, how this relationship is linked to the negotiation and shaping of the tensions that arise from global and local, as well as abstract and concrete structures of the transnational public engagement standard in practice. Thus, the research questions in this article are: How are standards set and imposed on sites of heterogeneous contexts? How are they translated and adopted? Which ambiguities arise from the tension between global, abstract and vague public engagement models and their local, concrete and specified contextualization at the local level, and how are they resolved to make the model work? By transferring the insight gleaned from standardization studies to the field of public engagement models, it is possible to examine the multi-site implementation of models as a means to spread and establish a given design. Such an examination contributes to a better understanding the relationship between the coordination work of standard setters and the translation work of standard adopters. This paper includes five sections. In the first section I will focus on the standardization of transnational public engagement and introduce the case of WWViews on Biodiversity. In the second section I will present perspectives from literature addressing aspects of standardization, in particular the relationship between global, abstract standards and their local, concrete implementation. In the third section I will introduce the theoretical and analytical context of how to study standardization in order to understand the dynamics between standard setting and adoption. In the fourth section I will present my methodological approach and examine the empirical case study of the WWViews on Biodiversity in two parts: First, the translation process of transforming the design standard into instructions for standard adopters. Second, the translation process of transforming the design standard into local implementations. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the tensions and ambiguities that arise from these translations are resolved in order to create a standard that works.
In: Governing Biodiversity through Democratic Deliberation, Edited by Mikko Rask and Richard Worthington, 01/2015: pages 249-268; Routlegde., ISBN: 978-1-315-84931-7
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The starting point of this chapter is recent growing interest in and criticism of public particip... more The starting point of this chapter is recent growing interest in and criticism of public participation instruments, that is, ready-made designs for conducting dialogue with stakeholders or the general public. Several participation instruments emerged simultaneously as the idea of ‘good governance’ based on participation and deliberation gained ascendency. Participation instruments have been praised not only by practitioners and policymakers but also by social scientists for how well they function in overcoming expert–lay divisions and preventing technocratic decision-making, and for how easily they travel to new settings. Recent criticism has emphasized the irony that these instruments can in fact impose an extra layer of technocracy: by being carefully designed and increasingly professionalized, they can alienate the public to whom they are intended to give a voice. This chapter will discuss two such participation instruments, ‘the scenario workshop’, as developed by the Danish Board of Technology (DBT), and ‘the do-it-yourself citizens’ jury’, as developed and used by the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Centre at Newcastle University (PEALS). In this chapter, we will analyse these two examples as cases of translation. The first case examines how elements of the ‘future workshop’, developed as a tool to encourage grassroots involvement, become entangled with those of the ‘scenario workshop’, a method used in participatory technology assessments. The second case examines how the reaction against top-down government and academic approaches to participation via citizens’ juries became a vehicle for the development of the ‘do-it-yourself citizens’ jury’, a tool that emphasizes a citizen-led bottom-up approach. We suggest that growing interest in participation instruments should be studied as an object in its own right. One way to do this, we argue, is to analyse participatory instruments as continuously involved in processes of translation. We favour a notion of translation that both takes into account the fact that translation always involves shifts in meaning (cf. Freeman 2009) and creates new links between entities and agents that modify these entities and agents (Latour 1991). Depending on their local application, our analysed participation instruments potentially draw on different representations of participatory governance, which in turn rely on different imaginations of the public and its role in planning and decision-making. Ready-made participation designs embody particular values as well as abstract notions of ‘participants’, ‘citizens’, ‘public deliberation’, and so on, and can be seen as tools for engendering new forms of socio-technical relationships (Lezaun/Soneryd 2007). Their normative potential to put such values into practice, however, does not arise from the ability of these designs to manipulate abstract categories, such as ‘stakeholders’, ‘citizens’, or ‘experts’ (categories imbued with different meanings in specific ready-made designs); instead, it arises from the complex and unpredictable mixtures generated when people put the designs into practice (cf. Garrety/Badham 2004). The main focus in the comparative analysis of our two cases is on translation in the first sense mentioned above, that is, the shifting meanings of ‘participation’, ‘citizens’, ‘experts’, and so on. The dimensions we include in our analysis are as given: (1) The problem definition itself, that is, to what problem is ‘the participation instrument’ thought to be a solution? (2) How do conceptualizations of participants and public participation change when ideas and elements of a participatory design are combined in new ways? In discussing the relevance of our analysis to knowing governance, however, we draw on notions of translation in the second sense as well, which implies a radically relational approach to governance. This means that neither the objects of governance nor the actors involved in governance can be seen as given entities, but rather as constantly transformed through their relationships. In the studied cases, this means that the pressure on organizations to increasingly engage with publics not only is embedded in shifting discourse, but also entails the active shaping of devices and transformation of agents when they act to meet such demands. We primarily discuss this notion of translation in the concluding section of this chapter.
In: Knowing Governance. The Epistemic Construction of Political Order., Edited by Jan-Peter Voß, Richard Freeman, 11/2015; palgrave macmillan., ISBN: 9781137514516
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Die Sonderveranstaltung »Nachwuchs in der Krise« auf dem DGS-Kongress 2014 in Trier zeigte, dass ... more Die Sonderveranstaltung »Nachwuchs in der Krise« auf dem DGS-Kongress 2014 in Trier zeigte, dass vom Doktoranden, über die Post-Doktorandin und die Juniorprofessorin, bis hin zum ausgewanderten Professor Wissenschaftler/innen in allen Karrierestufen prekäre Arbeitsbedingungen im Wissenschaftsbetrieb kennen und erfahren. Neben dem stoischen Ertragen einer unverhältnismäßig langen ›wissenschaftlichen Adoleszenz‹ stellen nur der Weggang ins Ausland oder die Abkehr von der Wissenschaft individuelle Handlungsoptionen dar. Beinahe wöchentlich ist in den großen
Medien über die Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen im deutschen Hochschulsystem zu lesen. Der Hintergrund ist die sich stetig verschlechternde Situation des akademischen Mittelbaus, die geprägt ist von hochgradiger Beschäftigungsunsicherheit und Prekarität, insbesondere in
den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften. Zeitungsartikel, die erstaunt von der Leidensfähigkeit der so genannten Nachwuchs-Wissenschaftler/innen berichten, offenbaren das eigentliche Problem: Die berufliche Unsicherheit gehört zum akademischen Mythos. Nur wer von der inneren Berufung zur
Wissenschaft beseelt ist, wird in der Lage sein, die Unwägbarkeiten des Wissenschaftsberufs auszuhalten – eine Sichtweise, die sich schon in Max Webers berühmter Rede »Wissenschaft als Beruf« findet. In den letzten Jahren steht dieser »unzeitgemäßen Aktualität Max Webers« (Kreckel 2013:
54) allerdings eine massive Verschärfung des Wettbewerbs um Forschungsgelder und Stellen bei gleichzeitiger Unterfinanzierung der Universitäten gegenüber. Die Schwierigkeiten durch diese äußeren Bedingungen des wissenschaftlichen Berufs sind geradezu eskaliert.
Aus dieser Situation heraus trafen sich Angehörige des wissenschaftlichen Mittelbaus erstmals im Frühjahr 2014 um zu diskutieren, welche Möglichkeiten der Veränderung ihnen zur Verfügung stehen. Die kleine Gruppe wuchs schnell an, formierte sich als Initiative »Für Gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft« und hat mit einem Offenen Brief an den Vorstand der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie einen ersten Schritt getan, um die Fachgemeinschaft für die problematische Situation des wissenschaftlichen Mittelbaus zu interessieren und zu mobilisieren. Im Folgenden sollen die zentralen Anliegen, das bisher Erreichte und die weiteren Schritte aus Sicht der Initiator/innen dargestellt werden.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Books by Nina Amelung
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Nmg342Sc9nXgaYDcJpvd/full
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Nc8VCkYW256CWIcCuBSw/full
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal articles by Nina Amelung
International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 2019
Biometric data is increasingly flowing across borders in order to limit and control the mobility ... more Biometric data is increasingly flowing across borders in order to limit and control the mobility of selected people not only for migration control but also for crime control. The promise is that while data is mobilised, those declared outlaws will be immobilised. In this article, we discuss reverse patterns of bordering and ordering practices linked to large-scale transnational biometric database infrastructures. We introduce the concept of bio-bordering, using it to capture how the territorial foundations of national state autonomy are partially reclaimed and, at the same time, partially purposefully suspended when establishing biometric data exchange. The case of the Prüm system, the mandatory exchange of forensic DNA data amongst the EU member states, serves to portray instances of overcoming and enforcing bio-borders for data flows. Firstly, we explore the different logics of creating permeable bio-borders at work at the EU level which derive from EU attempts of integrating legal, scientific, technical and organisational dimensions. Secondly, we take the Portuguese case as an illustrative example of how latently reinforcing bio-borders counters the ambition of expansive data exchange.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Nina Amelung
cell, or consensus conference in the 1970s and 1980s, to the disembedding and proliferation of procedural formats in the 1990s, and into the trans-local consolidation of participatory practices through laboratory-based expertise since about 2000. Our account highlights a central irony: anti-technocratic engagements with governance gave birth to efforts at establishing technoscientific control over questions of political procedure. But such efforts have been met with various forms
of reflexive engagement that draw out implications and turn design questions back into matters of concern. An emerging informal assessment regime for technologies of participation as yet prevents closure on one dominant global design for democracy beyond the state.
classical science communication providers have a particular approach to public engagement and participation. The case study of one of the few existing transnational
citizen deliberation cases, the World Wide Views on Biodiversity (WWVB), provides insights into how local organizers
– staff from science museums at selected national
sites – enacted and shaped the implementation of a pre-
defined participatory format.
In: Stengler, E. (2015) Studying Science Communication.
Bristol: Science Communication Unit. ISBN 9781860435225
01/2008; Peter Lang Verlag., ISBN: 978-3-631-54436-5
In: Governing Biodiversity through Democratic Deliberation, Edited by Mikko Rask and Richard Worthington, 01/2015: pages 249-268; Routlegde., ISBN: 978-1-315-84931-7
In: Knowing Governance. The Epistemic Construction of Political Order., Edited by Jan-Peter Voß, Richard Freeman, 11/2015; palgrave macmillan., ISBN: 9781137514516
Medien über die Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen im deutschen Hochschulsystem zu lesen. Der Hintergrund ist die sich stetig verschlechternde Situation des akademischen Mittelbaus, die geprägt ist von hochgradiger Beschäftigungsunsicherheit und Prekarität, insbesondere in
den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften. Zeitungsartikel, die erstaunt von der Leidensfähigkeit der so genannten Nachwuchs-Wissenschaftler/innen berichten, offenbaren das eigentliche Problem: Die berufliche Unsicherheit gehört zum akademischen Mythos. Nur wer von der inneren Berufung zur
Wissenschaft beseelt ist, wird in der Lage sein, die Unwägbarkeiten des Wissenschaftsberufs auszuhalten – eine Sichtweise, die sich schon in Max Webers berühmter Rede »Wissenschaft als Beruf« findet. In den letzten Jahren steht dieser »unzeitgemäßen Aktualität Max Webers« (Kreckel 2013:
54) allerdings eine massive Verschärfung des Wettbewerbs um Forschungsgelder und Stellen bei gleichzeitiger Unterfinanzierung der Universitäten gegenüber. Die Schwierigkeiten durch diese äußeren Bedingungen des wissenschaftlichen Berufs sind geradezu eskaliert.
Aus dieser Situation heraus trafen sich Angehörige des wissenschaftlichen Mittelbaus erstmals im Frühjahr 2014 um zu diskutieren, welche Möglichkeiten der Veränderung ihnen zur Verfügung stehen. Die kleine Gruppe wuchs schnell an, formierte sich als Initiative »Für Gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft« und hat mit einem Offenen Brief an den Vorstand der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie einen ersten Schritt getan, um die Fachgemeinschaft für die problematische Situation des wissenschaftlichen Mittelbaus zu interessieren und zu mobilisieren. Im Folgenden sollen die zentralen Anliegen, das bisher Erreichte und die weiteren Schritte aus Sicht der Initiator/innen dargestellt werden.
Books by Nina Amelung
Journal articles by Nina Amelung
cell, or consensus conference in the 1970s and 1980s, to the disembedding and proliferation of procedural formats in the 1990s, and into the trans-local consolidation of participatory practices through laboratory-based expertise since about 2000. Our account highlights a central irony: anti-technocratic engagements with governance gave birth to efforts at establishing technoscientific control over questions of political procedure. But such efforts have been met with various forms
of reflexive engagement that draw out implications and turn design questions back into matters of concern. An emerging informal assessment regime for technologies of participation as yet prevents closure on one dominant global design for democracy beyond the state.
classical science communication providers have a particular approach to public engagement and participation. The case study of one of the few existing transnational
citizen deliberation cases, the World Wide Views on Biodiversity (WWVB), provides insights into how local organizers
– staff from science museums at selected national
sites – enacted and shaped the implementation of a pre-
defined participatory format.
In: Stengler, E. (2015) Studying Science Communication.
Bristol: Science Communication Unit. ISBN 9781860435225
01/2008; Peter Lang Verlag., ISBN: 978-3-631-54436-5
In: Governing Biodiversity through Democratic Deliberation, Edited by Mikko Rask and Richard Worthington, 01/2015: pages 249-268; Routlegde., ISBN: 978-1-315-84931-7
In: Knowing Governance. The Epistemic Construction of Political Order., Edited by Jan-Peter Voß, Richard Freeman, 11/2015; palgrave macmillan., ISBN: 9781137514516
Medien über die Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen im deutschen Hochschulsystem zu lesen. Der Hintergrund ist die sich stetig verschlechternde Situation des akademischen Mittelbaus, die geprägt ist von hochgradiger Beschäftigungsunsicherheit und Prekarität, insbesondere in
den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften. Zeitungsartikel, die erstaunt von der Leidensfähigkeit der so genannten Nachwuchs-Wissenschaftler/innen berichten, offenbaren das eigentliche Problem: Die berufliche Unsicherheit gehört zum akademischen Mythos. Nur wer von der inneren Berufung zur
Wissenschaft beseelt ist, wird in der Lage sein, die Unwägbarkeiten des Wissenschaftsberufs auszuhalten – eine Sichtweise, die sich schon in Max Webers berühmter Rede »Wissenschaft als Beruf« findet. In den letzten Jahren steht dieser »unzeitgemäßen Aktualität Max Webers« (Kreckel 2013:
54) allerdings eine massive Verschärfung des Wettbewerbs um Forschungsgelder und Stellen bei gleichzeitiger Unterfinanzierung der Universitäten gegenüber. Die Schwierigkeiten durch diese äußeren Bedingungen des wissenschaftlichen Berufs sind geradezu eskaliert.
Aus dieser Situation heraus trafen sich Angehörige des wissenschaftlichen Mittelbaus erstmals im Frühjahr 2014 um zu diskutieren, welche Möglichkeiten der Veränderung ihnen zur Verfügung stehen. Die kleine Gruppe wuchs schnell an, formierte sich als Initiative »Für Gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft« und hat mit einem Offenen Brief an den Vorstand der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie einen ersten Schritt getan, um die Fachgemeinschaft für die problematische Situation des wissenschaftlichen Mittelbaus zu interessieren und zu mobilisieren. Im Folgenden sollen die zentralen Anliegen, das bisher Erreichte und die weiteren Schritte aus Sicht der Initiator/innen dargestellt werden.