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.

This is very hard to say upfront. I'm not an advocate for saving data for the sake of it.

Understanding and having the option to have some data open and some data restricted ongoing. The button at the bottom of the Annotate tool is helpful in this respect. 

As an academic that has recently left the institutional belonging for a moment to a university, I can answer this from two perspectives.

All of my digital design research projects have very specifc ways of digitally managing data, including building platforms for researchers in tech corporations (climate change or for spaces for protecting endangered species beyond borders). To manage digital data in their platforms.

Working with women-in-tech on their public leadership. The group required data to be shared and sjupport for one another via WhatsApp. This supported their Twitter and public TV experiences live.

Or working with those not engaging in multi-arts venues via building together an app - the process being the most successful outcome. We used the data management processes the funder  required and also the design adn tech partners were using.

During Covid-19 digital data flows in the usual ways, but we're discussion new CRMs for fundraising right now. We share data in the usual way, but Zoom, WhatsApp and Skype scaffold a lot of our emphasis on face-to-face community engagement. We don't share data outside of the homeless charity on interaction numbers on the street etc, because like many charities it need not report data to the government. The charity does not share homeless data with governmental departements that share their data in ways we would not advocate for, unless it is required by law,— like auditing and tax. 

Digital design research is what I do, — but during the crisis it is to enable me to build community trust and give remote and rapid leadership and community decision-making in my role as a Chair of a homeless charity in London, UK.

Bullet Journal (handwritten with dotted pages for designing).

Trello for project management unless on a specific project that requires other software for gantt charts, workplans, etc.

Adobe Suite (Indesign, Illustrator etc.)

Email (usually Outlook)

DTP - Microsoft Word, Excel etc. but also using online free platforms like Google Docs and Sheets.

Text Edit - all the time for cleaning up text and embedded coding.

Headspace - meditation.

WhatsApp - for sharing.

Audible for music.

Photos and video on my phone.

Twitter - social media and outreach.

Signal  - for better encryption.

Pocket casts – podcasts for inspiration and research

NCVO platform and .gov.uk and other websites using Chrome or Signal.

Bookends - bibliography.

Skype / Zoom - remote working during covid-19 mostly.

and more...

https://twitter.com/bateswalsall1/status/1264308701269233665?s=20

The twitter link above shows a video of a foodbank near where I live in London in a shopping centre in Elephant and Castle. This is a foodbank queue for the unemployed and those receiving benefits. This is not a queue for the homeless. It also shows close proximity and in some places the inability to distance and follow national guidance.

"Currently, there are no studies on the survival of the COVID-19 virus in drinking-water or sewage. The morphology and chemical structure of this virus are similar to those of other coronavirusesa for which there are data about both survival in the environment and effective inactivation measures. This guidance draws on the existing evidence base and current WHO guidance on how to protect against viruses in sewage and drinking-water."

and 

"The COVID-19 virus is enveloped and thus less stable in the environment compared to non-enveloped human enteric viruses with known waterborne transmission (such as adenoviruses, norovirus, rotavirus and hepatitis A). "

Link: Water, sanitation, hygiene, and waste management for the COVID-19 virus, Interim guidance, 23 April 2020 by WHO and UNICEF: https://www.who.int/publications-detail/water-sanitation-hygiene-and-wa…

These excerpts from WHO regs, relate to Aalok Khandekar’s draft commentary, “Heat and Contagion in the Off-Grid City”  in relation to mentioning hepatitis.

And, also to a comment in previous weeks around air transmission and sewage across the border in north and south America made by Kim Fortun