Search

The environmental legacies left behind by industrial production are pervasive in the air, the soil, and the water. This elemental elixer surrounds us.

In the field of STS, it is perhaps obvious to suggest that institutions have cultures, norms, standards, and professional ways of being. Yet, what are we to make of the results of industry telling its own past publically. The corporate origin story could be a footnote in Joseph's Campbells work. The allure of the lone individual working tirelessly until an innovation is produced and the market takes over. 

Yet, the Wood River Refinery tells a different story. One about place, about people, about the terrible minutia of life lived within bureaucracy. Yes, the story told is glossy and teleological, but the question emerges. What can be learned about the stories industry tells about itself? What do these artifacts contribute to histories and what weight do we give to these stories within the Anthropocene?

The factory at Wood River is both a place where labor is maximized for profit, but also where worker devote 40 precious hours of their week. Lives persist and even thrive in the factory. Are the stories of these lives at Wood River? 

I think the field campus was a great success and showed how it differs from or compliments traditional formats (conferences, workshops, lectures...). The schedule was deliberately intense, but I am glad we could keep up a good pace throughout the three days. However, I agree that shared time to reflect on what we saw and heard each would have been helpful. A lot of this happened in the cars and at the two accommodations, but more collective time would be great for a future campus. On our way back, we discussed several ways to structure such discussions, for example by picking up one of the twelve analytic questions or making an inventory of (types of) people we encountered in the field. I am also interested in what people with experience in doing ethnography thought about showing up at sites in a group vs. being the lone fieldworker, and how that shifted the way you asked questions or interacted with the sites.

In that regard, I found it particularly helpful to meet participants in advance during the Zoom calls and learn about their skills/interests.  The group interview with Tony West was also a great way to prepare not only for the first day but to get a sense of St. Louis as a place. We should definitely think about similar modes to prepare for New Orleans. Also, since I was involved with setting up the final exhibition a GCADD, I am looking forward to discussing more what the exhibit at 4S could look like and what those of you with a background in the arts think about it.

I am working on a digital collection for the quotidian anthropocene theme "civic infrastructure". I am especially interested in free software, open data, digital maps, and other related forms of participation that are either a direct response to the anthropocene or help to render it visible in different ways.

http://disaster-sts-network.org/users/tim-schutz

I will develop a digital presentation of Philadelphia quotidian anthropence and on the theme of climate change adaptation. I will be using this analytic, "Profiling a Climate Policy", which I've created to assess urban adaptation plans. I'll provide more details by next Wednesday April 3rd.

http://disaster-sts-network.org/users/alison-kenner

http://disaster-sts-network.org/user

For me personally, I think the campus was a valuable exercise in learning to think on my feet. Also, if one of the goals of the field campus was to “generate more data than the investigator is aware of at the time of collection,” as Marilyn Strathern has said of ethnography, I’d call it an assured success. The schedule, subject matter, and activities were notably intense, and certainly didn’t leave much room (or energy) for rigorous analysis in situ. So it seems to me that the ultimate value of the field campus is still in the process of production, as we all continue to process, discuss, and relate the significance of our experiences and interactions to our own research sites and areas of expertise over the course of the following months.

Perhaps this was simply a matter of being fresh energized, but I think Day 1 was the most productive and enjoyable. I also think this had to do with the way it was structured; e.g. beginning with Tony's primer, folllowed by the tours, and finally the panel discussion, the day just built up nicely. It also gave us an approachable sampling of the ways a coherent set of anthropocenic sites and practices had been differentially uncovered, recovered, or (more or less figuratively) covered up by diverse stakeholders. And we were given time to critically (if also (mostly) cordially) engage each set of stakeholders as a group, bringing in our own unique insights, questions, and interests.

I really enjoyed the first day’s higher degree of shared attention and designated time for Q&A and discussion. That’s not to say I think every event should be a group tour. Self-guided exploration is useful too, and I realize that part of the idea of splitting up was to facilitate smaller collaborations on diverse group projects. Still, perhaps setting aside a few sessions for group-wide Q&A with stakeholders each day would create that small bit of noise and contingency that helps generate creativity.

I will continue to build a digital collection on the quotidian anthropocene in Austin, Texas and will be contributing to a set of digital resources for exploring energy transition across sites.

The immersion into various spaces within St. Louis was incredibly insightful for rapid learning about the area's past, present, and imagined futures. What I think might have strengthened the field campus as a learning/thinking space would be to have slightly more structure in terms of explicitly creating shared analytical space--for instance, being more consistent with interrogating the space with the 12 scale questions (perhaps different groups could be assigned to paying special attention to a subset of those and then we could come together as a large group or as shuffled groups, i.e. a member from each subset) to discuss. Along those lines as well, I think creating specific times for reflecting and debriefing, either after a site visit or two or at the end of each day, would be an effective way to help translate massive amounts of observational data (so many of us listening/observing in each place!) into meaningful shared insights.

For future field schools I also think it would be important to think about accessibility, not just in terms of content (which is also an important question, since it seems we want to engage with folks across disciplines and beyond academia) but also in terms of format, so as to anticipate and/or be prepared to adjust to the needs of potential participants.