Search

Emerging technologies are increasingly being sought as interventions to intractable environmental and public health issues that promise to intensify on our warming planet. Genetically engineered mosquitoes could curb the impacts of mosquito-borne diseases like malaria and dengue. Solar geoengineering could use cloud thinning or aerosol scattering to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet. Adequate regulatory and governance mechanisms do not yet exist for these technologies, the impacts of which span international boundaries, and have the power to irreversibly alter environments. There is wide recognition from national and international bodies that decision-making processes surrounding these technologies must engage local and Indigenous communities whose lands and resources would be impacted by their trial and deployment. In response, public, community, and stakeholder “engagement” has taken center stage in the discourse on emerging environmental technology governance. Scientists and technologists are now compelled to engage publics and communities, as they recognize that some form of engagement or authorization will be requisite to the application of their technologies outside the laboratory. The language of participatory engagement abounds in scientific and governance literature on environmental technologies. These texts espouse the importance of co-design, relationship-building, shared decision-making, and mutual learning, and recognize the uneven power relations in which environmental decisions have historically been made. Yet, emergent practices of engagement leave much to be desired in terms of realizing their stated aspirations. Deficit model approaches frame publics and communities primarily as “lay people” needing to be educated before weighing in on decisions. In my fieldwork on one Pacific island where genetically modified mosquitoes are being considered for endangered bird conservation, I observed a focus group in a market research firm in which local and Indigenous residents were tested on their knowledge of invasive species biology and asked to rank radio advertisements and slogans about the modified mosquitoes. The conflation of engagement with marketing strategies and public relations campaigns prioritize the management of public perception over genuine dialogue or mutual learning. In theory, all the interest in engagement promises to open up meaningful possibilities for local and Indigenous communities to realize their rights to self-determination. In practice, strategic and instrumental approaches instead subdue opposition and manufacture consent. Legal mechanisms are needed to codify Indigenous rights in decision-making processes. Alternative approaches are needed that widen the focus beyond a single technofix to let communities define environmental challenges and collectively imagine solutions. Opposition should be read not as a barrier but as a generative site for inquiry, as often it is not the technology itself being refused but the exclusionary processes that surround its use. The most just solutions are likely to emerge from those very refusals. 

Taitingfong, Riley. 2023. "It’s all talk: how community engagement is failing in environmental technology governance." 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.

According to Google Scholar, this article has only been cited once. The publication's name is "Documenting Attacks on Health Workers and Facilities in Armed Conflicts." This publication discusses attacks on health facilities and workers in Afghanistan, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen.

The article's bibliography contains many references including the WHO, the Red Cross, and other organizations, as well as many other experts and professionals in the field. 

The authors range from a variety of institutions including: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, Karolinska Institute in Sweden, Fafo Research Institute in Norway, and King's College London in the UK. The main author, Ludvig Foghammar, seems to have a lot of knowledge in economics, political science, and global health (according to his LinkedIn). He has served as Officer for European Affairs for the Swedish Embassy in Vienna, and a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 

The methods used in this paper include interviews from 11 different representatives of organizations working in complex security environments, information from research workshops that included researchers and practitioners in the fields of health and humanitarian aid delivery and policy, and overall analysis of organizational efforts made to address this type of violence.

They also use many examples of situations in which violence against humanitarian workers and facilities occurred. 

The authors discuss that there is little information regarding this topic because there is a lack of research. This is pointed out by the fact that they could only find 38 articles that related to this topic. They also point out that there is an urgency for an analysis regarding the impact of this violence on the facilities, organizations, and on the populations that benefitted from the humanitarian presence. 

The argument is supported through examples of violence, interviews, and insight into the ways in which research is lacking in this field.

1. "At the same time, academic research is often communicated in a format that fails to address the critical policy issues facing aid organizations."
2. "Because reporting often focuses on the most serious attacks, such as kidnapping and fatalities, workshop participants stressed that incidents perceived to be less severe, such as threats and obstructions, are more likely to be underreported. For this reason it is important to better understand the impact of perceived threats."
3. "Workshop participants also noted examples of violence linked to situations where the medical treatment provided has not met patients’ expectations or was unsatisfactory in other ways."
4. "Although violence directly affecting health service delivery in complex security environments has received a great deal of media attention, there is very little publically available research, particularly peer-reviewed, original research. Only thirty-eight articles met the original search criteria outlined in the methods section, of which only eleven contained original research; a further citation search yielded another four original research articles. The remainder was comprised of review articles, commentaries, letters, or analysis based on secondary sources."

While this article does not really address emergency response, the discussion of violent attacks on humanitarian workers does involve emergency responders and can affect how humanitarians provide care. So while not direct, this article does have implications for emergency responders in those regions.