Search

The project "Researching Kaohsiung Archive: practice and reflection" is a collaborative effort with the UCI team addressing the global environmental injustice record in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, particularly focusing on the slow and accumulative harm caused by petrochemical development. Under the Environmental Injustice Global Record (EIGR) website, the Kaohsiung Archive serves as a trans-disciplinary platform for data archiving and communication. Since joining in 2021, the team has collected and visualized diverse data sources, engaging stakeholders in collaboration. The archive development involves addressing key questions related to environmental justice studies, fostering brainstorming and reflection. The project acts as a boundary object, connecting local and international communities, providing an information infrastructure for social dialogue,and aiming to contribute to a sustainable transformation discourse on the risks of petrochemical developments in Kaohsiung. The long-term impact on academic production method and knowledge dissemination remains to be seen, but the project aspires to inspire co-creation, cross-border cooperation,and innovation to empower civil society and enhance environmental justice governance.

The creation of the Kaohsiung Archive begins with a series of questions, utilizing the Environmental Justice (EJ) study framework applied to Hawaii as a guide. These questions delve into the influence of industries on environmental governance and advocacy, exploring the strategiesemployed. The process involves collaborative efforts to answer these questions, fostering brainstorming, debates, and reflections on characterizing the setting and revealing environmental injustice within the case study.

Following workshops and fieldwork in Kaohsiung, the project evolved to formulate narrative structures for mapping and visualizing environmental injustice in the region. Objectives include outlining Kaohsiung's features, focusing on petrochemical-related air pollution and industrial transformation issues, and designing relays to illustrate the challenges faced by fence-line communities and showcase potential action initiatives.

The project's progression involves tracking the issue, identifying and categorizing stakeholders, as well as gathering information and experiences from various parties. Stakeholder claims are sorted out, and efforts are made to find common action goals. Discursive risk analysis is conducted, examining environmental monitoring issues around petrochemical facilities. For instance, in Dashe, there is a focus on the discursive gaps between local residentsand petrochemical workers, revealing disparities in perceptions of air quality and expectations regarding governmental control.

Source

Tu, Wen Ling. 2023. " Researching Kaohsiung Archive: Practice and Reflection." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

The project "Researching Kaohsiung Archive: practice and reflection" is a collaborative effort with the UCI team addressing the global environmental injustice record in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, particularly focusing on the slow and accumulative harm caused by petrochemical development. Under the Environmental Injustice Global Record (EIGR) website, the Kaohsiung Archive serves as a trans-disciplinary platform for data archiving and communication. Since joining in 2021, the team has collected and visualized diverse data sources, engaging stakeholders in collaboration. The archive development involves addressing key questions related to environmental justice studies, fostering brainstorming and reflection. The project acts as a boundary object, connecting local and international communities, providing an information infrastructure for social dialogue,and aiming to contribute to a sustainable transformation discourse on the risks of petrochemical developments in Kaohsiung. The long-term impact on academic production method and knowledge dissemination remains to be seen, but the project aspires to inspire co-creation, cross-border cooperation,and innovation to empower civil society and enhance environmental justice governance.

The creation of the Kaohsiung Archive begins with a series of questions, utilizing the Environmental Justice (EJ) study framework applied to Hawaii as a guide. These questions delve into the influence of industries on environmental governance and advocacy, exploring the strategiesemployed. The process involves collaborative efforts to answer these questions, fostering brainstorming, debates, and reflections on characterizing the setting and revealing environmental injustice within the case study.

Following workshops and fieldwork in Kaohsiung, the project evolved to formulate narrative structures for mapping and visualizing environmental injustice in the region. Objectives include outlining Kaohsiung's features, focusing on petrochemical-related air pollution and industrial transformation issues, and designing relays to illustrate the challenges faced by fence-line communities and showcase potential action initiatives.

The project's progression involves tracking the issue, identifying and categorizing stakeholders, as well as gathering information and experiences from various parties. Stakeholder claims are sorted out, and efforts are made to find common action goals. Discursive risk analysis is conducted, examining environmental monitoring issues around petrochemical facilities. For instance, in Dashe, there is a focus on the discursive gaps between local residentsand petrochemical workers, revealing disparities in perceptions of air quality and expectations regarding governmental control.

Tu, Wen Ling. 2023. " Researching Kaohsiung Archive: Practice and Reflection." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

The authors review literature on the datafication of health, which they identify as the way through which health has been quantified on a number of different scales and registers. They focus primarily on the datafication of health in clinical health care and self-care practices, rather than medical research and public health infrastructures. From this literature, they identify three key themes: datafied power (the ways through which data permeates and exerts power over forms of life), living with data (focused on datafication as an intimate form of surveillance, and a technology of the self), and data-human mediations (which emphasizes the nonhuman elements mediating datafication dynamics and experiences—such as algorithms, data infrastructure and data itself).

In examining literature on datafied power, the authors acknowledge a lack of scholarship on understanding data and datafication in terms agency, rather than simply power and domination. For instance, data is sometimes mobilized in “creative and even pioneering ways (Rapp 2016)” (265).

They describe literature on “living with data” as increasingly focus examining the social, narrative, and affective dimensions of data practices and experiences (e.g. work on the “Quantified Self,” a group seeking self-knowledge through numbers – a form of relationality that might be described as datasociality). Some scholars have argued that data can render “‘feelings and problems more tangible and comparable” (Sharon & Zandbergen 2016, p. 11)” (267). Some have also acknowledged as well a “curious resonance between the vision of empowered, resisting individuals that many ethnographers of self-tracking celebrate, and the rhetoric of consumer empowerment found in discourses of digital health (Schull 2017, Sharon 2017)” (267).

The literature on data-human mediations emphasizes the agency, liveliness and/or performativity of nonhuman elements—essentially, how they structure and shape the possibilities for action. For instance: “as social expectations of normality and health become embedded in tracking devices’ target numbers, presentation of scores, and gamified incentives (Depper & Howe 2017, Whitson 2013), a “numerical ontology” comes to suffuse everyday practices and “the ways in which people relate to their own bodies” (Oxlund 2012, p. 53; see also Jethani 2015, p. 40)” (269). Perspectives and action can be enabled or disabled by wide variety of factors: the design and performativity of data technology software (user interface, operational and analytical algorithms), hardware (devices, sensors), data itself (as illustrated in different ways), and data infrastructures (labs, data centers, serve and cloud storage, and networks that organize how data is stored and circulated). An analytically constructive focus in this literature has emerged by applying the concept of “assemblage” as a way of tracing how data moves: “where it flows, where it finds impasses, how algorithms act on it along the way” (270).

Lastly, the authors identify scholarship on “data activism” as an emerging focus on exploring how data technology capacities might be employed to promote social justice, collective action, and political participation, as well as to challenged dominant norms and ideologies: “Individual self-tracking data, for instance, can have social and political potential when it is pooled to identify health inequalities, collective environmental exposure, or disparities in quality of life (Gabrys 2014).” (271)

There are many vulnerabilities listed in this artifact that directly affect the community. To begin with, Bergen, Hudson, and Essex county are listed as the state's worse air quality. It also states that more than four in 10 people experience unhealthy air quality in the community within NJ.