Analyze

What I find really noteworthy in this text is how Julia Watts Belser takes the poem by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and includes it into a scientific text. In this way, she not only allows an affected person to have her say, the poem also leaves the reader with a very striking image of the connection between the river and the body, in multiple ways, as well as the connection between enviromental harm and disability.

The text was published in 2020 (Vol. 40, No. 4) by The Ohio State University Libraries in their Journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). It is, as you can read on their Homepage "a multidisciplinary and international journal of interest to social scientists, scholars in the humanities and arts, disability rights advocates, and others concerned with the issues of people with disabilities. It represents the full range of methods, epistemologies, perspectives, and content that the field of disability studies embraces. DSQ is committed to developing theoretical and practical knowledge about disability and to promoting the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society."

The author connects disability theories and activism with environmental justice, this approach allows her to show how disability is related to and through environmental harm, she shows how diagnoses are used politically in these cases, and looks critically at how these processes determine how, when and in what favor human and environmental harm is taken into account. The writing is shaped by the consequences of the Anthropocene like environmental harm linked to health isusses, especially affected are communities of color and poor communities in the United States, here pre-existing patters of structural inequality, already known from climate change come into play,  this communities are the most affected and the least responsible.

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

I am a Ph.D. candidate in anthropology at the University of California, Irvine. I am working on my doctoral dissertation that explores post-disaster ecological imaginary shaped and performed through data practices in post-Fukushima Japan. My project examines how data practices of citizen radiation detection activities construct and reconfigure the understanding and experience of citizen scientists regarding post-Fukushima “Japan” as part of the ecosystem.  For further projects, I am also interested in the sociocultural role of small data in the era of big data and how small data that represent and intervene in environmental issues are intersected and interacted with big data in various domains. 

I am currently participating in the Transnational Disaster STS COVID-19 project and the COVID-19 and Data group as a subgroup of the project above. As a member of these groups, I am unraveling COVID-19 data practices and the relationships among multiple data actors such as the government, research institutions, media, and citizen scientists in Japan. I am also interested in how differently citizen data platforms have been gaining scientific and political authorities in Japan, the U.S., and South Korea during the pandemic.

I am particularly interested in these questions: 

• What do different disciplines and communities involved in COVID-19 response mean by “good data”?

• How do local, national, and global data intersect, interact, and compete with each other? 

• What is shown and what is revealed or disregarded in COVID-19 data produced about different settings (a particular city, region, or country, for example)?

• How are COVID-19 GIS data integrated with other data forms? What is the role of the GIS data in different COVID-19 settings?

• What is the role of civic data as COVID-19 information in comparison to governmental or institutional data?

• What do people expect from data within the COVID-19 pandemic? 

• How is the data circulated for COVID-19 different from data produced in another pandemic period?

I can be contacted at inahk[at]uci.edu.

The incredible amount of awful potholes in Newark called for this report. This report lists all of the streets and the dates that they will be paved in Newark, and it is one fat list. Newark roads are awful. Bad roads=poor infrastructure= weak resilience. If there is a disaster, someone who lives in a poor area may hit a pothole and be completely stranded and die, as a result of the poor infrastructure of our roads in Newark. I once hit a pothole in Newark and the bang from my wheel hitting the edge of the hole was loud and drastic enough for me to worry about a flat tire. I didn't get a flat, fortunately, but my tire frame was bent. 

The article focuses on rebuilding more resilliently, 

"At the forefront of this work is NJIT’s Center for Resilient Design, housed at the university’s College of Architecture and Design. Established immediately post-Sandy, the Center conducts research and serves as a clearinghouse for expertise, ready-to-build designs, case studies and best practices. The Center is accessed by state and local leaders, business owners and residents living in areas especially vulnerable to flooding and storms."

The article focuses on rebuilding more resilliently, 

"At the forefront of this work is NJIT’s Center for Resilient Design, housed at the university’s College of Architecture and Design. Established immediately post-Sandy, the Center conducts research and serves as a clearinghouse for expertise, ready-to-build designs, case studies and best practices. The Center is accessed by state and local leaders, business owners and residents living in areas especially vulnerable to flooding and storms."

"

“Today I announced $5 billion in funds to rebuild New Jersey and New York and here at NJIT tonight are the most remarkable design minds in the world,” said Donovan. “I spoke to President Obama for an hour about this design competition and he said this is exactly what the nation needs -- designers collaborating with government officials and residents affected by the storm. That’s the best way to rebuild and it’s our goal at HUD.”

Earlier in the day, the 10 design teams presented as many as five ideas to a jury assembled by Rebuild by Design, a Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force allied with HUD. The teams had three months to research their design ideas.  Early next month, the jury will select one idea -- the best idea -- from each team. The teams will focus on refining those ideas and the competition will continue into 2014, when HUD will decide which team or teams to fund.   "

"James Giresi, one of the students, said that Theodore’s class gave him the opportunity to get hands-on, real-life experience.  His team visited the Jersey shore several times, studying the ecology of the lowlands and the highlands, as well as the demographics of the residents living along the coast. After they gathered their research, they shared their findings with Theodore and the Dutch experts on her team"

The article describes infrastructure as something that needs to be built with a focus on people as well as the environment. This can improve transportation (reduced air pollution in Newark), create a more sustained access to power and energy, increase economic mobility, make communities more resilient, improve health, etc. This company has done work on sustainability projects in regards to infrastructure in Newark, which demonstrates their engagement with sustainable and resilient infrastructure. 

Nearly half of Newark's school's are contaminated with dangerous levels of lead. Or so they were two years ago when this article was published. This relates to infrastructure because we are poisoning poor, primarily black and hispanic communities, whom already have low resilience. Because they live in empowerished neighborhouds, their children go to lower income schools, and when they drink the water provided there, they put themselves at risk of cancer, infertillity, and other results of lead poisoning. If Newark's infrastructure was more balanced between white and black communities, there would not be impoverished areas that have poisonous drinking water at schools, as the water standard in the schools would have been raised to that of higher income communities.