You've probably gathered by now that I've been involved in the University of Nottingham's hosting of the Science in Public conference in July. It is all very exciting and looks like it is shaping up to be a busy event with around 90 papers - the draft programme will be announced and registration opened very soon .. perhaps even this week.
In this post I am flagging up the STS Breakfast that will be happening on the Tuesday morning (23rd July), and giving some of the details that can't fit on the registration page. The breakfast will be hosted by a team from Goldsmiths College and the following text is theirs.
---------------------------------
We are a group of STS researchers (from Goldsmiths) working with a broad constellation of organisations from across Europe on the development of a new ‘ethical’ surveillance technology (the group includes activists, big technology firms, transport organisations, consultants and University based computer scientists, along with us STS researchers). The technology is based upon the science of algorithms (at once a computer science and in this project a science of spaces within which people and things move and associate). We have drawn on Actor-Network Theory and the notion of assemblage and Callon’s work on hybrid forums, to re-think the design configuration in which we are engaged. Within this work, we are interested in simultaneously exploring the making and non-making of (a surveillance) public, the making public of STS sensibilities, and the translation of STS sensibilities into a prospective public good (a putative of set of values with possible value, or what Stark terms worth).
Rather than singly define the worth of STS, we have sought engagements with a variety of audiences with whom we can engage in a demonstration/assessment exercise. So far this has included demonstrations to the ‘public’ (broadly construed), data protection officers and EU bureaucrats. However, we would like to take these engagements to STS audiences too. What do STS researchers make of what we have made of STS? We are interested in exploring the multiplicity of voices, accountability relations, deferrals and delegations of accountability that this might provoke.
The session we will run in Nottingham will last an hour. It will include a video based demonstration of the technology, plus some presentation of the STS sensibilities that have fed into the design. The audience will be invited to join in a discussion on the project, what we have made and what we have made of STS. This will involve a direct Q and A session and we also have an anonymous web feedback mechanism that anyone is welcome to use.
----------------------------------
Looks pretty great! And you'll even get a bacon/veggie roll or pastry and some coffee and juice etc. As someone who is interested in the way public(s) are imagined/used and how markets translate and manage some of the concerns STS-thinking raises I'll definitely be there.
If you have any burning questions on the ADDPRIV project please contact Daniel Neyland at Goldsmiths direct. If you have any questions about the logistics of the breakfast at Nottingham please feel free to contact me direct. In the meantime, make sure you look out for the chance to register for this free session when registration opens.
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
Monday, 29 April 2013
This is My2050 - What Will Yours Be LIke?
I have finally got around to having a go at the My2050 game. Let me just say from the outset, if you take this seriously it is really, really hard. The game lets you explore and test your preferred solution for reducing CO2 emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050. Also, if you have the window open at the same time as writing a blogpost (like I have now) the music is really, REALLY irritating, so mute your PC/laptop/tablet.
The project is run by the Department for Energy & Climate Change and is a simplified version of the 2050 calculator which was tested around the country in trials and deliberative dialogues. Here is a DECC summary of the wider project and Sciencewise host a detailed account of the deliberative aspects.
So, first off, I really like this tool. I like that it’s open online to anyone who wants a go, its visual and fun to use, and I like that it involves trade-offs and gives a little indication of the consequences of your choices for both production and demand. Without having really thought it through, I was inclined towards nuclear energy as a comparatively secure and clean energy source (in my opinion). According to My2050 I’d built 50 – FIFTY – large new nuclear power plants and I hadn’t even reduced our carbon emissions by half. I had to rethink that. Going into My2050 I'd have said I have a few problems relating to land use from biomass, I don’t want to support 7x as much onshore wind and I don’t really want to put all my eggs into as-yet-unproven CCS and marine power. In maintaining that, you are left with a lot of fossil fuels or a very energy-frugal life. So, you have to rethink a lot of things you think you have a position on.
So without further ado, here is where I currently am. I’m actually interesting in benchmarking this for 12 months to see what I think in 2014 but in the meantime I’m sure you will all be gladdened to see that I have imagined a future for 2050 where our CO2 emissions are 19% of 1990 levels.
I have committed you all to: bioenergy crops on land half the size of Wales (I didn't want that but it's the baseline), half the fossil fuels we use now (half of which are storing their carbon), 13 new large nuclear power stations, an extra 5,000 onshore wind turbines, 40000 offshore wind turbines, 10m solar panels per person and 27000 wave machines. It takes some imagining, doesn’t it? And that’s just the supply side.
In terms of demand, I’ve doubled our manufacturing industry and half of it stores its carbon (gulp). 75% homes have additional insulation and our average indoor temperature is maintained at 17 deg C. 9 in 10 domestic heat systems are electric, cars are used for a maximum of 60% of journeys and 4 in 5 cars are powered electrically or by hydrogen fuel cells.
After you have manoeuvred the levers you still have to ensure you have balanced your energy security (including that your demand choices are not incompatible with your supply choices). Once you’re happy you can choose to submit your pathway to DECC, you can have your own preference e-mailed to you and you can share either the general website or your own preferences on Facebook or Twitter. Then, once you’ve submitted you can compare your choices to the submitting population and to high profile participants (in my case this was swimmer Duncan Goodhew who, incidentally, I was photographed with at the local swimming baths when they were still called swimming baths). My choices were alot closer to those of the "2050 Project Manager" but I bet s/he hasn't got an Olympic medal.
I thought it was a very interesting exercise. Yes, it trades off some sophistication for utility, but it is still effective in relaying the scale of what it means to reduce our carbon emissions. Another thing I like about the calculator is that tens of thousands of pathways have been submitted to DECC which when you think about it is pretty amazing. I love that (a) I can share my thoughts with you and maybe have a debate, and (b) you can see links to preferred pathways of key stakeholders (although these are mostly derived from the 2050 Calculator, a slightly more complex predecessor of My2050 Pathways). There are pathways from, for example, Mike Childs - Friends of the Earth, Duncan Rimmer – National Grid and author Mark Lynas.
What a great communication tool for NGOs, "thought leaders" and anyone wanting a public debate. What a great stimulus! Come on then, let’s have some debate – what do you think of my choices? And what do you think of the tool?
The project is run by the Department for Energy & Climate Change and is a simplified version of the 2050 calculator which was tested around the country in trials and deliberative dialogues. Here is a DECC summary of the wider project and Sciencewise host a detailed account of the deliberative aspects.
So, first off, I really like this tool. I like that it’s open online to anyone who wants a go, its visual and fun to use, and I like that it involves trade-offs and gives a little indication of the consequences of your choices for both production and demand. Without having really thought it through, I was inclined towards nuclear energy as a comparatively secure and clean energy source (in my opinion). According to My2050 I’d built 50 – FIFTY – large new nuclear power plants and I hadn’t even reduced our carbon emissions by half. I had to rethink that. Going into My2050 I'd have said I have a few problems relating to land use from biomass, I don’t want to support 7x as much onshore wind and I don’t really want to put all my eggs into as-yet-unproven CCS and marine power. In maintaining that, you are left with a lot of fossil fuels or a very energy-frugal life. So, you have to rethink a lot of things you think you have a position on.
So without further ado, here is where I currently am. I’m actually interesting in benchmarking this for 12 months to see what I think in 2014 but in the meantime I’m sure you will all be gladdened to see that I have imagined a future for 2050 where our CO2 emissions are 19% of 1990 levels.
I have committed you all to: bioenergy crops on land half the size of Wales (I didn't want that but it's the baseline), half the fossil fuels we use now (half of which are storing their carbon), 13 new large nuclear power stations, an extra 5,000 onshore wind turbines, 40000 offshore wind turbines, 10m solar panels per person and 27000 wave machines. It takes some imagining, doesn’t it? And that’s just the supply side.
In terms of demand, I’ve doubled our manufacturing industry and half of it stores its carbon (gulp). 75% homes have additional insulation and our average indoor temperature is maintained at 17 deg C. 9 in 10 domestic heat systems are electric, cars are used for a maximum of 60% of journeys and 4 in 5 cars are powered electrically or by hydrogen fuel cells.
After you have manoeuvred the levers you still have to ensure you have balanced your energy security (including that your demand choices are not incompatible with your supply choices). Once you’re happy you can choose to submit your pathway to DECC, you can have your own preference e-mailed to you and you can share either the general website or your own preferences on Facebook or Twitter. Then, once you’ve submitted you can compare your choices to the submitting population and to high profile participants (in my case this was swimmer Duncan Goodhew who, incidentally, I was photographed with at the local swimming baths when they were still called swimming baths). My choices were alot closer to those of the "2050 Project Manager" but I bet s/he hasn't got an Olympic medal.
I thought it was a very interesting exercise. Yes, it trades off some sophistication for utility, but it is still effective in relaying the scale of what it means to reduce our carbon emissions. Another thing I like about the calculator is that tens of thousands of pathways have been submitted to DECC which when you think about it is pretty amazing. I love that (a) I can share my thoughts with you and maybe have a debate, and (b) you can see links to preferred pathways of key stakeholders (although these are mostly derived from the 2050 Calculator, a slightly more complex predecessor of My2050 Pathways). There are pathways from, for example, Mike Childs - Friends of the Earth, Duncan Rimmer – National Grid and author Mark Lynas.
What a great communication tool for NGOs, "thought leaders" and anyone wanting a public debate. What a great stimulus! Come on then, let’s have some debate – what do you think of my choices? And what do you think of the tool?
Friday, 19 April 2013
Messy Research and Why I Love Science & Technology Studies
I'm writing up my PhD research at the moment. As I plan to finish by the end of the year it is my current top priority and - as is the nature of these things - I am becoming more absorbed by it as each week passes. Now I come to write in earnest, I'm wrestling with the challenge of how much has changed over the three and a half years I have been looking at public engagement with science in Scotland.
Firstly, the political landscape in Scotland is quite different now to how it was in Autumn 2009 when I started my studentship. In May 2011 the Scottish people elected their first majority government, led by the Scottish National Party. The SNP's victory has impacted my research through their energy policy and their pursuit of independance. The SNP commitment to ambitious renewable energy targets has been an important contextualising factor, as is the role of energy in Scotland's future. I will hopefully have wrapped up my PhD work by the time the Scots come to vote on independance in September 2014, but the arguments are already in full swing, and energy always been an absolutely critical piece of Scotland's economic jigsaw. So, the stakes are high on Scotland's low-carbon transition and - depending on your persuasion - energy has become a symbol of an affluent future or an example of a leadership hell-bent on a policy that will destroy what is special about the nation. To be perfectly honest, when I planned my research, the "Scottishness" of it was not really on my horizon. This niaivity lasted only as long as my very first interview when the interviewee - reflecting on informal science as a leisure activity - said,
Secondly, the energy landscape has changed. Electricity production from renewable energy rose by 28% between 2009 and 2012, the amount of onshore wind has doubled and The Scottish Government (TSG)'s CO2 emissions reduction and renewables targets have been revised. Now, TSG aim to generate the equivalent of 100% Scotland's gross annual electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020. This has not been unproblematic and reasons for opposition vary (as I have blogged previously) but it is fair to say that the policy targets have evolved more quickly than the accompanying public engagement programme. In the last few years a Public Engagement Strategy for a Low Carbon Scotland has been promised, produced and quietly forgotten, recently replaced by a Low Carbon Scotland: Behaviours Framework.
And thirdly, the practical exercise of public engagement is looking quite different to three or four years ago. When I started my studentship, I think there was a clearer distinction between science communication and public engagement, and/or there was a greater appetite for distinguishing between the two. Now, it seems any event that has a scientist and a member of the public within 10 metres of each other can be called public engagement. I think this is a shame, and worry we are in danger of forgetting how to articulate the importance of science communication on its own merits. The Beacons for Public Engagement (including the Edinburgh Beltane) had just been launched as I started my research. Now gone, Beltane leaves behind permanent structural and cultural changes. There has been an explosion of informal science communication events from universities and science centres, and over the last 2 years The Scottish Government has sought to reposition its public engagement grant scheme towards projects that are more dialogic and community-based. Public protests against renewable energy projects have become more organised, more networked, the arguments more broadly based, and they can mobilise more quickly.
These are of course just tasters of unstable ground in governance, energy and science-public relations. So how do you do justice to research that has ended up examining a national level live experiment?! In essence of course, this is really just the messiness of social research and in particular the thing we call Science and Technology Studies. The integration of evolving technology, changing political landscape and a study of how that impacts - and in turn is impacted by - different parts of society is absolutely core to the STS philosophy. The way in which these areas are all evolving quickly, sometimes independantly and sometimes linked, is what becomes the interesting question.
Firstly, the political landscape in Scotland is quite different now to how it was in Autumn 2009 when I started my studentship. In May 2011 the Scottish people elected their first majority government, led by the Scottish National Party. The SNP's victory has impacted my research through their energy policy and their pursuit of independance. The SNP commitment to ambitious renewable energy targets has been an important contextualising factor, as is the role of energy in Scotland's future. I will hopefully have wrapped up my PhD work by the time the Scots come to vote on independance in September 2014, but the arguments are already in full swing, and energy always been an absolutely critical piece of Scotland's economic jigsaw. So, the stakes are high on Scotland's low-carbon transition and - depending on your persuasion - energy has become a symbol of an affluent future or an example of a leadership hell-bent on a policy that will destroy what is special about the nation. To be perfectly honest, when I planned my research, the "Scottishness" of it was not really on my horizon. This niaivity lasted only as long as my very first interview when the interviewee - reflecting on informal science as a leisure activity - said,
"I think it comes from our Calvinistic heritage, this need for things to be useful as well as enjoyable".The legacy of Scotland's national identity on its current science landscape is a PhD in itself (although strangely, outside innovation studies this kind of work seems a little out-of-vogue), but I have enjoyed thinking about what is distinctly Scottish and what is not (I have found the work of Charles WJ Withers and David Livingstone useful here).
Secondly, the energy landscape has changed. Electricity production from renewable energy rose by 28% between 2009 and 2012, the amount of onshore wind has doubled and The Scottish Government (TSG)'s CO2 emissions reduction and renewables targets have been revised. Now, TSG aim to generate the equivalent of 100% Scotland's gross annual electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020. This has not been unproblematic and reasons for opposition vary (as I have blogged previously) but it is fair to say that the policy targets have evolved more quickly than the accompanying public engagement programme. In the last few years a Public Engagement Strategy for a Low Carbon Scotland has been promised, produced and quietly forgotten, recently replaced by a Low Carbon Scotland: Behaviours Framework.
And thirdly, the practical exercise of public engagement is looking quite different to three or four years ago. When I started my studentship, I think there was a clearer distinction between science communication and public engagement, and/or there was a greater appetite for distinguishing between the two. Now, it seems any event that has a scientist and a member of the public within 10 metres of each other can be called public engagement. I think this is a shame, and worry we are in danger of forgetting how to articulate the importance of science communication on its own merits. The Beacons for Public Engagement (including the Edinburgh Beltane) had just been launched as I started my research. Now gone, Beltane leaves behind permanent structural and cultural changes. There has been an explosion of informal science communication events from universities and science centres, and over the last 2 years The Scottish Government has sought to reposition its public engagement grant scheme towards projects that are more dialogic and community-based. Public protests against renewable energy projects have become more organised, more networked, the arguments more broadly based, and they can mobilise more quickly.
These are of course just tasters of unstable ground in governance, energy and science-public relations. So how do you do justice to research that has ended up examining a national level live experiment?! In essence of course, this is really just the messiness of social research and in particular the thing we call Science and Technology Studies. The integration of evolving technology, changing political landscape and a study of how that impacts - and in turn is impacted by - different parts of society is absolutely core to the STS philosophy. The way in which these areas are all evolving quickly, sometimes independantly and sometimes linked, is what becomes the interesting question.
Friday, 15 March 2013
Big Bang Fair in the Mirror (without Distortion)
Stuart Parkinson from Scientists for Global Responsibility has written this week for the New Left Project in a post called The Big Bang Fair: A Distorted View of the Value of Science. He notes the commercial influence on the Fair (sponsorship, exhibitions, interactive activities) and is particularly concerned about the type of companies involved, highlighting the presence of arms companies, oil companies, uranium miners and other multinationals with dubious social practices (yes, I know that’s not hard to find). This is consistent with SGR’s long-running work challenging the militarisation of science and technology and concerns regarding corporate influences on academic research. If you’re interested in these issues definitely go and visit their website.
With respect to the Big Bang Fair, Stuart feels that these problematic industries and purposes have too great a profile, and laments the absence of – say - renewables developers and the lack of emphasis on more ethical applications of science and engineering. I would be more convinced if someone had analysed all 170 organisations involved in the Big Bang Fair to see whether defence and extraction companies had a presence disproportionate to the number of engineers and scientists employed in those sectors. I strongly suspect they don’t, in which case it is difficult to see what is being distorted.
Science communication is not – and never is - a neutral space. Someone always pays. Someone always hosts. Someone always designs the information. It’s always lacking in some sense. There will always be someone to argue that this display, exhibit, programme or event is not broad enough, or focussed enough, not diverse enough, not real-world enough. It overplays the consensus (a regular comment on climate change stuff) or underplays the consensus (I remember the Science Museum’s Living Tradition exhibit which David Waldock blogged about). Here, Stuart seems to argue it’s not pure enough. Not optimistic enough. Not enough emphasis on the good things that engineering can do. I think this criticism would be better targeted if this were a government sponsored event aimed at telling people what engineering was all about. But of course it isn’t.
Big Bang Fair is now in its 4th year and is a multi-partner, multi-sector event. It has to be in order to meet its objectives. You can’t talk to young people about a career in engineering if you don’t have employers there. BAe, Shell, Jaguar Land Rover (and Nestle!) are all Top 3 employers in their sectors. Like many of the big science festivals, this is not a Fair that was publicly funded and has been captured by industry – actually, they have very firm roots in the commercial world. Quite simply, they would not take place without corporate sponsorship. In the UK science festivals have traditionally been about tourism and local economic development much more than they have been about communicating worthy science (for more on this, read the excellent background summary on the Orkney International Science Festival site). The University science festival, pursuing a public engagement agenda, is a relatively new entrant to the field. Yes, I do realise this is not a science festival per se. But if this …careers festival? … were fully government funded, there would be many people quite rightly asking why science and engineering careers were being given this special treatment by government.
The US National Academy of Engineering (@NAE_DC) recently tweeted “The way that we talk about engineering is it's the art and practice of changing the physical world to improve life for mankind”. This point about changing the physical world is really important and makes engineering inherently challenging in terms of the ethics of engaging people (young and old) with it. What I said earlier about science communication not really being ‘neutral’? Magnify this 100 times for engineering. The defence and production sectors of the UK economy are significant (I think defence + mining + manufacturing is about 35% our economy?), and employ a much higher percentage of our engineers. They all have social and environmental impacts and this will not be resolved by getting in more renewable technology employers – to a ‘general public’ these may well be even more controversial.
So, back to Stuart’s post. You might call it an Uncreative View, or a Pessimistic View, but there isn’t really a lot of evidence to call it a Distorted View. To be honest, I think it looks a lot like a mirror.
With respect to the Big Bang Fair, Stuart feels that these problematic industries and purposes have too great a profile, and laments the absence of – say - renewables developers and the lack of emphasis on more ethical applications of science and engineering. I would be more convinced if someone had analysed all 170 organisations involved in the Big Bang Fair to see whether defence and extraction companies had a presence disproportionate to the number of engineers and scientists employed in those sectors. I strongly suspect they don’t, in which case it is difficult to see what is being distorted.
Science communication is not – and never is - a neutral space. Someone always pays. Someone always hosts. Someone always designs the information. It’s always lacking in some sense. There will always be someone to argue that this display, exhibit, programme or event is not broad enough, or focussed enough, not diverse enough, not real-world enough. It overplays the consensus (a regular comment on climate change stuff) or underplays the consensus (I remember the Science Museum’s Living Tradition exhibit which David Waldock blogged about). Here, Stuart seems to argue it’s not pure enough. Not optimistic enough. Not enough emphasis on the good things that engineering can do. I think this criticism would be better targeted if this were a government sponsored event aimed at telling people what engineering was all about. But of course it isn’t.
Big Bang Fair is now in its 4th year and is a multi-partner, multi-sector event. It has to be in order to meet its objectives. You can’t talk to young people about a career in engineering if you don’t have employers there. BAe, Shell, Jaguar Land Rover (and Nestle!) are all Top 3 employers in their sectors. Like many of the big science festivals, this is not a Fair that was publicly funded and has been captured by industry – actually, they have very firm roots in the commercial world. Quite simply, they would not take place without corporate sponsorship. In the UK science festivals have traditionally been about tourism and local economic development much more than they have been about communicating worthy science (for more on this, read the excellent background summary on the Orkney International Science Festival site). The University science festival, pursuing a public engagement agenda, is a relatively new entrant to the field. Yes, I do realise this is not a science festival per se. But if this …careers festival? … were fully government funded, there would be many people quite rightly asking why science and engineering careers were being given this special treatment by government.
The US National Academy of Engineering (@NAE_DC) recently tweeted “The way that we talk about engineering is it's the art and practice of changing the physical world to improve life for mankind”. This point about changing the physical world is really important and makes engineering inherently challenging in terms of the ethics of engaging people (young and old) with it. What I said earlier about science communication not really being ‘neutral’? Magnify this 100 times for engineering. The defence and production sectors of the UK economy are significant (I think defence + mining + manufacturing is about 35% our economy?), and employ a much higher percentage of our engineers. They all have social and environmental impacts and this will not be resolved by getting in more renewable technology employers – to a ‘general public’ these may well be even more controversial.
So, back to Stuart’s post. You might call it an Uncreative View, or a Pessimistic View, but there isn’t really a lot of evidence to call it a Distorted View. To be honest, I think it looks a lot like a mirror.
Sunday, 24 February 2013
Experts, Windbags, Connoisseurs, Mavens, Critics and Pundits
As Robin Ince gets a Guardian platform to express his views on experts and windbags, I thought it might be interesting to bring out a piece of work written 9 years ago that’s never really got the traction it deserves (In my opinion. Or expertise. Depending who’s judging me). The fact that it sits firmly behind a paywall even though it’s nearly a decade old is undoubtedly part of the reason.
Robin (can I call him that? Good.) talks about how over-opinionated our society has become and I have a lot of empathy with that. He makes a very good point in that across the internet you can always find someone that shares your view however …err…niche, so you accord a specious validity to whatever might come out of your mouth.
Sadly he then wades into an exploration of expertise without really distinguishing the difference between what he calls “experts” and “so-called experts”. The two things he does draw out are that experts are effective in their practice (the handles don’t fall off your soup mug) and that you can back your opinions up (you can explain *why* you hold a view). Even a cursory glance suggests this is a bit lacking – many of us pontificating on the internet or those on TV are in the business of throwing ideas about rather than making soup bowls, so who judges whether ideas ‘work’? And what if my explanation as to why I hold a view is a scaffold of nonsense too? Not all foundations are firm, regardless of how clearly they are articulated.
I don’t want to pick apart Ince’s piece because I think he raises an important question about the “public intellectual” and the fact that EVERYBODY has an opinion of EVERYTHING and isn’t afraid to share it. I just want to highlight that clever people (Harry Collins for example) have spent many years thinking clearly about what expertise is and what its role is and they’ve generally come up with more substantive ideas than 'expert' and 'windbag'. The irony will not be lost on many of you I’m sure.
A lot of that work though focusses on how expertise plays out in professional environments and in the governance of science. How well does this translate to the “public expert”? Here, I’d like to roll in Peter Healey’s 2004 work on Scientific Connoisseurs and Other Intermediaries: Mavens, Critics and Pundits (£).If you’re interested in science, art, culture, public intellectuals it’s worth a read.
The choice of the old-school word connoisseur is purposeful: Healey is conjuring up ideas of wine connoisseurs and art connoisseurs who have traditionally separated the practice of a thing from the judgement of it – we don’t expect wine and art buffs to be vinyers or artists. We have connoisseurs of tobacco, chocolate and sport. Is it only in relation to science, they ask, that society does not recognise that non-practitioners have a role to play in discriminating between good and poor performance – in acting as connoisseurs?
Connoisseurship however has quite distinct cultural connotations and if you’re anything like me you’ve currently got a mental image of Peter Ustinov in a smoking jacket with a fine claret and a spittoon. Healey was also suspicious of the elitist associations of these traditional understandings of the connoisseur so drew out the maven, the critic and the pundit to offer up more modern, more transferable, more accessible roles:
• The maven has an expertise that is “narrow but deep”, accumulating knowledge on a broad range of aspects of one particular category or subject. This knowledge is not gained from the practice of an expertise and is probably closest to the traditional understanding of the connoisseur. The maven is all about sharing this knowledge and socially is very powerful (see Malcolm Gladwell’s "Tipping Point" for more on this)
• The critic is a practitioner (or ex-practitioner) with expertise and experience who is looking to change the establishment from the inside. Healey looks to Britain’s 1970s movement for social responsibility in science (like Scientists for Global Responsibility, for example). I think much of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science work quite clearly fits in this category.
• The pundit, in Healey’s typology, possesses less direct knowledge and draws on other people’s opinions. Punditry is not a well-regarded activity and is not adding anything to the debate - its one manifestation of Ince’s windbag.
As I went to a business school, I know that all good ideas are improved by putting them into a 2x2 so here is my slightly – but not necessarily – tongue-in-cheek overlaying of Ince and Healey. Let's call it the HIG (Healey-Ince-Gibbs) Matrix of Publicly Expressed Opinions...it's bound to catch on with a quality name like that. I’ve considered whether the speaker is operating from a position of personal practical experience in that topic, and whether they are applying a supportive or critical stance ( I’m not completely happy with this axis but let’s not let that get in the way of a good 2 x 2).
(Image from here)
So, when people express opinions it is right to think about what role they are playing in expressing that particular opinion at that particular time, and it is right to ask how broadly one person (or set of people) can actually legitimately comment as ‘experts’. But instead of a binary idea of experts and windbags, maybe we could make that a bit richer by introducing the connoisseur, the maven, the critic and the pundit.
Robin (can I call him that? Good.) talks about how over-opinionated our society has become and I have a lot of empathy with that. He makes a very good point in that across the internet you can always find someone that shares your view however …err…niche, so you accord a specious validity to whatever might come out of your mouth.
Sadly he then wades into an exploration of expertise without really distinguishing the difference between what he calls “experts” and “so-called experts”. The two things he does draw out are that experts are effective in their practice (the handles don’t fall off your soup mug) and that you can back your opinions up (you can explain *why* you hold a view). Even a cursory glance suggests this is a bit lacking – many of us pontificating on the internet or those on TV are in the business of throwing ideas about rather than making soup bowls, so who judges whether ideas ‘work’? And what if my explanation as to why I hold a view is a scaffold of nonsense too? Not all foundations are firm, regardless of how clearly they are articulated.
I don’t want to pick apart Ince’s piece because I think he raises an important question about the “public intellectual” and the fact that EVERYBODY has an opinion of EVERYTHING and isn’t afraid to share it. I just want to highlight that clever people (Harry Collins for example) have spent many years thinking clearly about what expertise is and what its role is and they’ve generally come up with more substantive ideas than 'expert' and 'windbag'. The irony will not be lost on many of you I’m sure.
A lot of that work though focusses on how expertise plays out in professional environments and in the governance of science. How well does this translate to the “public expert”? Here, I’d like to roll in Peter Healey’s 2004 work on Scientific Connoisseurs and Other Intermediaries: Mavens, Critics and Pundits (£).If you’re interested in science, art, culture, public intellectuals it’s worth a read.
The choice of the old-school word connoisseur is purposeful: Healey is conjuring up ideas of wine connoisseurs and art connoisseurs who have traditionally separated the practice of a thing from the judgement of it – we don’t expect wine and art buffs to be vinyers or artists. We have connoisseurs of tobacco, chocolate and sport. Is it only in relation to science, they ask, that society does not recognise that non-practitioners have a role to play in discriminating between good and poor performance – in acting as connoisseurs?
Connoisseurship however has quite distinct cultural connotations and if you’re anything like me you’ve currently got a mental image of Peter Ustinov in a smoking jacket with a fine claret and a spittoon. Healey was also suspicious of the elitist associations of these traditional understandings of the connoisseur so drew out the maven, the critic and the pundit to offer up more modern, more transferable, more accessible roles:
• The maven has an expertise that is “narrow but deep”, accumulating knowledge on a broad range of aspects of one particular category or subject. This knowledge is not gained from the practice of an expertise and is probably closest to the traditional understanding of the connoisseur. The maven is all about sharing this knowledge and socially is very powerful (see Malcolm Gladwell’s "Tipping Point" for more on this)
• The critic is a practitioner (or ex-practitioner) with expertise and experience who is looking to change the establishment from the inside. Healey looks to Britain’s 1970s movement for social responsibility in science (like Scientists for Global Responsibility, for example). I think much of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science work quite clearly fits in this category.
• The pundit, in Healey’s typology, possesses less direct knowledge and draws on other people’s opinions. Punditry is not a well-regarded activity and is not adding anything to the debate - its one manifestation of Ince’s windbag.
As I went to a business school, I know that all good ideas are improved by putting them into a 2x2 so here is my slightly – but not necessarily – tongue-in-cheek overlaying of Ince and Healey. Let's call it the HIG (Healey-Ince-Gibbs) Matrix of Publicly Expressed Opinions...it's bound to catch on with a quality name like that. I’ve considered whether the speaker is operating from a position of personal practical experience in that topic, and whether they are applying a supportive or critical stance ( I’m not completely happy with this axis but let’s not let that get in the way of a good 2 x 2).
(Image from here)
So, when people express opinions it is right to think about what role they are playing in expressing that particular opinion at that particular time, and it is right to ask how broadly one person (or set of people) can actually legitimately comment as ‘experts’. But instead of a binary idea of experts and windbags, maybe we could make that a bit richer by introducing the connoisseur, the maven, the critic and the pundit.
Monday, 7 January 2013
Coal and Irony
There’s an uncomfortable level of schadenfreude that the Big Pit National Coal Museum is having 200 solar panels fitted on its roof to help power it. “How perfect”, Solar Power World suggests … “the ultimate validation”. “Is it a sign of the times?” asks Treehugger. “Your daily dose of irony” says Smart Planet.
South Wales’ “Big Pit” gets its moniker from the size of its shaft, the first in Wales to accommodate two tramways. The main shaft was sunk in 1860 and the colliery employed over 1,000 workers extracting several different types of coal for the next 75 years before declining through the middle of the 20th century and finally closing in 1980. It was opened to visitors a few years later (you can go on an underground visit) and is an anchor point in the European Route of Industrial Heritage. I must be more systematic about doing this route, every year I decide to do it but never quite make it.
The idea that an edifice dedicated to remembering coal now relies on renewable energy to sustain it appealing, but it isn’t true. The solar panels are only expected to provide 6% of the power used by Big Pit. The rest is coming from the grid which, as I write (Sat/Sun midnight) is 61% fossil fuel (around half of which is coal), 31% nuclear, 8% renewables.
At the industry's peak, the UK employed 1.2M people in coal mining, a number reduced in a long term decline as practices became less labour intenstive then more quickly as output reduced after the 1984 miner’s strike and North Sea oil and gas came in (see DECC’s 60th Anniversary Digest of UK Energy Statistics for an overview, 2008 pdf). We are actually using roughly as much coal as we did 20 years ago, it’s just that now most of it is imported. Of the coal in the UK's mix, around 60% of it is travelling in from around the world – USA, Colombia and most significantly, Russia.
Coal mining in the UK has always been about more than energy. I expect this is true wherever coal seams are found - deep mine collieries have been a symbolic employer in local communities, and opencast mines intrude into the landscape in a headstrong way.....either way coal mining is difficult to ignore. I do not intend to glorify the role of coal in our energy mix or coal mining as a particularly safe or appealing job. Instead, I just want to reflect that coal mining has a lot of cultural significance in the Midlands and northwards, where I have spent much of my life, and coal mining has had important links to socialism in the UK. The loss of employment has had highly disruptive effects on communities, not least with occupation as a source of social cohesion being eroded. I’m saddened to read this same week that the future of the Grimethorpe Colliery Band is threatened - they're finding it difficult to tour due to lack of funds:
South Wales’ “Big Pit” gets its moniker from the size of its shaft, the first in Wales to accommodate two tramways. The main shaft was sunk in 1860 and the colliery employed over 1,000 workers extracting several different types of coal for the next 75 years before declining through the middle of the 20th century and finally closing in 1980. It was opened to visitors a few years later (you can go on an underground visit) and is an anchor point in the European Route of Industrial Heritage. I must be more systematic about doing this route, every year I decide to do it but never quite make it.
The idea that an edifice dedicated to remembering coal now relies on renewable energy to sustain it appealing, but it isn’t true. The solar panels are only expected to provide 6% of the power used by Big Pit. The rest is coming from the grid which, as I write (Sat/Sun midnight) is 61% fossil fuel (around half of which is coal), 31% nuclear, 8% renewables.
At the industry's peak, the UK employed 1.2M people in coal mining, a number reduced in a long term decline as practices became less labour intenstive then more quickly as output reduced after the 1984 miner’s strike and North Sea oil and gas came in (see DECC’s 60th Anniversary Digest of UK Energy Statistics for an overview, 2008 pdf). We are actually using roughly as much coal as we did 20 years ago, it’s just that now most of it is imported. Of the coal in the UK's mix, around 60% of it is travelling in from around the world – USA, Colombia and most significantly, Russia.
Coal mining in the UK has always been about more than energy. I expect this is true wherever coal seams are found - deep mine collieries have been a symbolic employer in local communities, and opencast mines intrude into the landscape in a headstrong way.....either way coal mining is difficult to ignore. I do not intend to glorify the role of coal in our energy mix or coal mining as a particularly safe or appealing job. Instead, I just want to reflect that coal mining has a lot of cultural significance in the Midlands and northwards, where I have spent much of my life, and coal mining has had important links to socialism in the UK. The loss of employment has had highly disruptive effects on communities, not least with occupation as a source of social cohesion being eroded. I’m saddened to read this same week that the future of the Grimethorpe Colliery Band is threatened - they're finding it difficult to tour due to lack of funds:
"Labour MP Michael Dugher said it was “snobbery” that the British Federation of Brass Bands, which supports bands such as Grimethorpe, got just £23,000 last year while the Royal Opera House in London got more than £26million and the English National Ballet was handed more than £6million."So, back to Big Pit’s solar panels. I think there is an irony here, but it’s not about a former colliery installing some renewable energy. The irony is that almost 35 years after the colliery closed, the Big Pit Museum is more reliant on imported coal than it is on any renewable energy. The UK is still completely reliant on fossil fuels and – perhaps in the ultimate irony - coal may well surpass oil to become the world’s biggest fuel by 2017.
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Alternative Nativity
Welcome to the world of alternative nativity scenes. I'm a big fan of nativity sets. Although Im also a fan of model villages, dolls houses, dioramas and miniatures so maybe I like to pretend I'm a giant. Nativities though, they always seemed so ... Christmassy, so uncommercial, so festive. I have a little nativity set on on my windowsill, with Mary and Joseph, three wise men with gifts, a shepherd and a few animals. There is also a caucasian baby Jesus and a manger, both of which go in as soon as it's set up - I think you have to be a bit of a fundamentalist not to put the baby in until Christmas Day. If you're serious enough about it to keep the baby to one side then where do you keep him during Advent? I can't imagine a matchbox or the pen drawer being quite right.
I got to wondering about my little Caucasian Jesus, and wondered how he, his family and visitors might be represented in different cultures.
This African-American set is very cute, although perhaps too cute. It reminds me of the Crying Boy pictures, popular in my childhood.
This Japanese set is made from Kokeshi dolls, recognisable from the enlarged head and simplistic trunk with no arms or legs. I quite like these, individual and modern (although the baby looks like he is in a bucket).
I love this Peruvian set. Its just so tactile and the little people are very warm looking. There appears to be a guy at the front with an ice cream, maybe he watched the whole birth.
This Mexican nativity, from www.greentuna.blogspot.com is interesting - I wonder what 'Kinder Egg' is in Mexican? I think Ive changed my mind about Nativities not being commercial.
This Native American version is also very warm, although I'm racking my memory for a mention of a teepee in Mark's gospel. Im glossing over the fact that they all appear to be pre-pubescent.
Thinking about different representations of people (or beings), here is a gay and lesbian nativity. OR it's two sets and someone moved the figures around. OR it's two Amish men and two Belle-lookalikes waking up after a *really* long Fresher's Week. Image from www.jesusinlove.blogspot.com (which intriguingly is "Home of the Gay Jesus and Queer Saints").
I love this. Harry Potter as the baby Jesus, Dumbledore, Snape and Quirrel as the wise men, Indiana Jones, Batman, dinosaurs, My Little Ponies and what looks like a worry doll as the Angel Gabriel - there's something for everyone here (from www.traveling-pics.livejournal.com)
Alien nativity, using bins. 10/10 for recycling. 0/10 for atmosphere. We're all thinking they look like Daleks aren't we?
A pagan nativity... they're a little bit Kokeshi, aren't they? from the Magical Musings blog.
Zombie nativity. Awesome. Handmade by fetishforethics
What's that I hear you cry? "Surely people don't always use clay and wood?". That's right! They use ... err ... balloons too. Festive I suppose, but the poor baby looks a bit bloated. From Jonathan at JS Balloon Modeling. Jonathan can make you a balloon sculpture for your wedding too, and he does lookalikes.
Almost at the end - a bacon nativity scene, from Smosh, as part of their "18 Pieces of Bacontastic Bacon Art" collection. The sausagemeat babies in the collection are a bit frightening to be honest.
Finally - and this via Sophia Collins - a nativity set made from tampons. brought to you by TamponCraft with full instructions. Clearly a tampon is for Christmas, not just life.
I got to wondering about my little Caucasian Jesus, and wondered how he, his family and visitors might be represented in different cultures.
This African-American set is very cute, although perhaps too cute. It reminds me of the Crying Boy pictures, popular in my childhood.
This Japanese set is made from Kokeshi dolls, recognisable from the enlarged head and simplistic trunk with no arms or legs. I quite like these, individual and modern (although the baby looks like he is in a bucket).
I love this Peruvian set. Its just so tactile and the little people are very warm looking. There appears to be a guy at the front with an ice cream, maybe he watched the whole birth.
This Mexican nativity, from www.greentuna.blogspot.com is interesting - I wonder what 'Kinder Egg' is in Mexican? I think Ive changed my mind about Nativities not being commercial.
This Native American version is also very warm, although I'm racking my memory for a mention of a teepee in Mark's gospel. Im glossing over the fact that they all appear to be pre-pubescent.
Thinking about different representations of people (or beings), here is a gay and lesbian nativity. OR it's two sets and someone moved the figures around. OR it's two Amish men and two Belle-lookalikes waking up after a *really* long Fresher's Week. Image from www.jesusinlove.blogspot.com (which intriguingly is "Home of the Gay Jesus and Queer Saints").
I love this. Harry Potter as the baby Jesus, Dumbledore, Snape and Quirrel as the wise men, Indiana Jones, Batman, dinosaurs, My Little Ponies and what looks like a worry doll as the Angel Gabriel - there's something for everyone here (from www.traveling-pics.livejournal.com)
Alien nativity, using bins. 10/10 for recycling. 0/10 for atmosphere. We're all thinking they look like Daleks aren't we?
A pagan nativity... they're a little bit Kokeshi, aren't they? from the Magical Musings blog.
Zombie nativity. Awesome. Handmade by fetishforethics
What's that I hear you cry? "Surely people don't always use clay and wood?". That's right! They use ... err ... balloons too. Festive I suppose, but the poor baby looks a bit bloated. From Jonathan at JS Balloon Modeling. Jonathan can make you a balloon sculpture for your wedding too, and he does lookalikes.
Almost at the end - a bacon nativity scene, from Smosh, as part of their "18 Pieces of Bacontastic Bacon Art" collection. The sausagemeat babies in the collection are a bit frightening to be honest.
Finally - and this via Sophia Collins - a nativity set made from tampons. brought to you by TamponCraft with full instructions. Clearly a tampon is for Christmas, not just life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)