Analyze

Ina Kim

Ina
Annotation of
In response to

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.

pece_annotation_1473109683

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

One argument presented is that public engagement leads to increased vigilance and emergency preparedness. Nuclear emergency response should not be governed by one elite body of scientists. Information should be crowd sourced from the public to increase awareness and transparency and lead to more ideas as well as public support. Another argument presented is that risk prevention has historically been the focus of governing bodies instead of risk acceptance and emergency response. A nuclear reactor being placed near the ocean is more fiscally responsible but natural disasters are unavoidable, regardless of the amount of risk prevention that has been taken. Instead, the focus should be on emergency response after natural disaster strikes. Safety is also sometimes substituted for profitability.

pece_annotation_1473634217

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

The report addresses disaster and health in how it describes actors' emergency response to the initial disaster as adequate but states the aid supplied does not allow progress to occur. The victims of the disaster were given temporary shelter in tents, but many still live in tents at the time of this report being written. These conditions led to a cholera outbreak which the actors did not seem to care about or provide aid for.