This sketch focuses upon the STS as a field for the creation of collaborative infrastructure. However, building on this idea and extending it beyond the suggested domain, we can bring in even more meaningful collaboration by including researchers from other disciplines.
I would like to question the virtual/online nature of a collaborative infrastructure as joseph has written about in the sketch. In India, and from my reading even in some other countries of the Global South, the virtual/online mode itself creates access barriers and is exclusive because of issues such as the failure of electricity, internet connectivity, even lack of network coverage in remote rural regions. Moreover, even in regions with good network coverage and access to electricity, a significant fraction of the population doesn't have the required minimum education to be able to leverage upon the online infrastructure platforms such as emails. I agree with Joesph's conceptualisation of collaborative infrastructure, but in my opinion, it may also be beyond the virtual world, for instance, a Self-Help Group (SHG) of women in a village supporting one-another in times of distress.
I was really taken by the line toward the end of poem #1: "Re-situated." It made me question the politics of re-situating items like a zine, for in this context, I read re-situating as a generative move that is always still in tension with lifting an object out of place.
Also, poem #2 got me thinking about the relationship between the material environment of a zine (its paper leaves, those leaves gathered into a whole which contains certain traces) and the material environments it travels in, through, or between. How does the technical language of the zine as some sort of book material connect it to its larger environment?
(How) do you surface these failures in writing? What happens to the paths not pursued, the readings unread, the papers rejected?
Would you prefer to burn the book in the McDonald's?
I'm interested in exploring some examples of this kind of "repetitive infrastructure" that the author has experienced; and whether there is use to such monotony/normalization? Are there examples of infrastructure that become *better* through such repetition?
Thank you for your interesting sketch.
When reading you document, I noticed you mentioning that you mostly cite scholars based in Europe and America. Was this a conscious choice? Did you not find any (academic) Indian references on the history of road transport in 20th century India?
I hope we can discuss these questinos next week during the workshop.
Many thanks for your fun-to-read and interesting sketch.
While reading through your document, one particular paragraph stood out to me ("do my citations include relevant material by black etc."). In this section, it sounds like you feel insecure about citing potential indigenous resources because your supervisors have labeled them as "idealized" or "irrelevant". Personally, I find such statements by themselves quite problematic, even more so when they make you feel like you should not cite or further look into this type of literature.
Given your research focus on food practices, I would argue that indigenous people have a lot to contribute, especially concerning more traditional ways of cultivating crops and processing food. Obviously, I am not an expert on the topic and do not know your exact research question, but I think it is worth pursuing indigenious contributions to your research topic - despite what your supervisors have said.
Once you have a good idea of the literature which has been contributed by indigenous people you will be able to assess whether their knowledge claims are relevant and insightful for your research. Sidelining their voices without having looked into the literature properly could mean that you miss out on important and innovative insights.
I look forward to discussing this further during our workshop.
Thanks for this very well structured and insightful sketch. Your PhD topic sounds intruiging. Unfotunately, I am not an expert on it though.
When reading your sketch, I was wondering if or to what extent Kosovo's accession process to the EU might have an influence on air pollution in the country? Usually, environmental standards and regulations are not at the center of an accession process, but maybe there has been some policy transfer/diffusion emenating from the EU to Kosovo?
This might not be useful at all for you, but it was one thought that struck me when I read your sketch.
I look forward to discussing your sketch further during the workshop.
I was intrigued by your answer on the overarching argument and also think it is important to name politics and also take a more radical stance at times. When and how to make an argument more critical or strong (e.g. through strategic essentialism) is something I have been thinking a lot in my projects. Should I e.g. refer to Big Data projects as 'not working', because in many instances they fail? Does it make that much sense to interrogate the accuracy frame when with these technologies it is often more about the politics they reproduce? When does it make sense to use emic or established terms and when are new ones more appropriate? How do you get detailed "enough" to make stronger or overarching claims while manging the risk of not beeing taking serious? I think audiences matter a lot here as well, e.g. when you know people with technnology background are reading your work, writing and argumentation strategies also change, and how and in what ways e.g. such more over-arching arguments can be made. Also positionality is important, if your are a famous scholar you can make bigger claims while being taking serious, but as a more junior person I think this can be much harder. Beyound being taking serious, there is also this risk of overimposing through too overarching or grand theories. I think these questions and tensions are also part of dealing with this boundry between academia and activism.
will become easier to parse for different contexts over time, also positionality matters a lot