Data in Crisis: anticipating risk, vulnerability, and resilience through communication infrastructures

This paper explores the implications of having interactions around crises progressively based in information and communication technology (ICT), data, and their infrastructures. Drawing on applied research from multidisciplinary projects to design crisis ICT, we describe the how these tools become fundamental to how crisis communication and governance can and does work. Crisis ICT facilitate collaboration and interoperability in ways that make it possible for crisis managers to share each other’s strategies, processes, goals, and perspectives. They also bring together different histories of risk assessment practices and socio-political situations. Combining them meaningfully requires anyone working with the ICT to actively negotiate and deliberate what that combined view includes. We examine a series of tensions raised by infrastructuringdiverse crisis data and discuss what they mean for conceptions of crisis risk, vulnerability, and resilience. First, are tensions that emerge when trying to provide an underpinning logic that makes data shareable and comparable. Second, are the dynamics that come from misunderstandings as crisis practitioners from different disciplines and cultures engage with each other through these infrastructures. Third are the tensions raised through the anticipatory conflicts between concrete data needs of a technology and the uncertainties of how crises unfold. Finally, we consider how these infrastructures stabilise crises to make them visible, actionable, and contestable. We argue that crisis communication requires reflexive perspectives, building into all communication practices mechanisms by which actors can be mutually responsive to each other. Our aim is to provoke those engaging with such tools to consider how risk, vulnerability, resilience, and the lived experience of crises are intertwined with the infrastructures that make communication possible

Technological Health Clinic: Reframing and Reimagining our Relationships with Technology

It is reasonable to argue that technology is disruptive, psychologically and socially; it can appear to be uncomfortably fast-paced, overbearing, and have unpredictable effects on our day to day behaviours, seemingly linked to anxiety, depression or stress (McFadden, 2019), and more so on socio-cultural values, perception, interdependence, and relational structures (Verbeek, 2005). Still, technology and society continuously co-shape each other. Systematic philosophy professor Hans Achterhuis reasons about the social logic of technology claiming that 'on the one hand, the development of technology is accompanied by a transformation of society, but on the other hand that process is determined by socio-cultural factors' (Achterhuis, 2001, pg. 8). This co-shaping conditions us to passivity due to our disposition to technological optimism while generalizing the aftermath of this shaping as unfavourable, reducing what we believe, think or know about technology to a merely instrumentalist perspective, in which technologies are conceived as a neutral means to help carry out a specific practice, while denying that they frequently transform this practice in radical ways (Smits, 2001). In either case, the spectrum both removes the user from the context and frames them as victims, taking away the agency and responsibility we as individuals have on said outcomes. The project seeks to develop techno-social literacies around our relationships with technology, the ways of being it co-constructs, and the behaviours it affords. Such literacy, as argued for by technology critic James Bridle, is seen as a necessary first step toward addressing a range of contemporary health conditions which are increasingly linked to our use of technology and immersion in media; it connects us to issues such as computational thinking (Bridle, 2019, pg. 4), novelty addiction, convenience culture, sedentary lifestyles, and FOMO, to name a few. By critically looking at how we relate with technology, not as the source but rather the output of fundamental human ethos, the work seeks to reframe issues with technology as social rather than technical. As a result, a generative and ongoing process of restructuring practice and unveiling action turned my interest in empathy, un-wellness*, care, and agency into the concept of technological health as a propositional, exploratory design research approach. To expose the shift in meaning, culture, and value that our current relationship with our devices appears to highlight, my Research looks at intervention structures that could aid in reframing and reimagining our relationship with technology. A Technological Health Clinic is proposed as a means of Research into such relationships, venturing with lifestyle experiments that question the ways we act, resist, and behave, to open up possibilities for restructured agency and self-understanding through the increased perception of our techno-mutualism.Ontological designCritical designDesign as researchMutualismInterdependenceExploratoryCareTechno-social literacyTechnological healthFocal practice

Experimenting with sustainability transformations: A study of Urban Living Labs in the food, water and energy nexus

Scholars and practitioners increasingly emphasize the importance of transdisciplinary and experimental approaches for understanding and addressing sustainability challenges. While there is widespread agreement that human society must undergo deep and radical changes, or so-called transformation, how transformation happens depends on multiple and dynamic factors in local contexts. In this thesis, I explore how to advance experimental transdisciplinary sustainability approaches to facilitate the collaborative development of solutions to sustainability problems and contribute to transformation. I use a transdisciplinary and real-world experimentation research approach called Urban Living Labs (ULL) that focuses on specific sustainability challenges in the food-water-energy nexus. I explore the intersection of these to understand how interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research can contribute to the co-production of action and solution- oriented knowledge. Moreover, I use a combination of interdisciplinary, participatory, and reflexive methods to investigate the processes of transdisciplinary sustainability research and the roles of researchers in these processes.In five papers, I address issues related to research design and planning, navigating the day-to-day conduct of transdisciplinary collaborations, knowledge transfer and sharing, and individual transformative capacity. In the first paper, I examine urban FWE nexus research to understand if and how solutions and their implementation are approached at a ‘local’ level, with implications for research design. The second paper considers FWE nexus research broadly to develop a heuristic for local-centered action- and solution-oriented research with key roles for inter- and transdisciplinary research and collaborations. The third paper focuses on navigating long-term transdisciplinary collaborations by applying the ULL approach in the context of local work with craft breweries. The fourth paper reconsiders transdisciplinary case-study evaluation and tackles the issues of knowledge transfer and sharing between cases. The fifth paper explores the development of transformative capacity in researchers who engage in transdisciplinary experimentation. Overall, this thesis advances transdisciplinary experimentation research toward developing and inhabiting spaces that both generate and employ transformative potential to address complex sustainability problems.Based on the outcomes of the papers, I discuss and challenge the position of the transdisciplinary academic by prioritizing not just what they know but who they are and how they act and interact. I argue that transdisciplinary sustainability research is an embodied practice, where it is more than just a methodological approach but akin to an identity with associated values and practices. The relevance of this work reaches into spaces of collaboration and negotiation for small or broad sustainability change, where sustainability requires us not only to do differently but also to be different

Reflections on the Reversibility of Nuclear Energy Technologies

The development of nuclear energy technologies in the second half of the 20th century came with great hopes of rebuilding nations recovering from the devasta-tion of the Second World War or recently released from colonial rule. In coun-tries like France, India, the USA, Canada, Russia, and the United Kingdom, nuclear energy became the symbol of development towards a modern and technologically advanced future. However, after more than six decades of experi-ence with nuclear energy production, and in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, it is safe to say that nuclear energy production is not without its problems.Some of these problems have their origins in the very materiality of the technolo-gies involved. For example, not only does the use of highly radioactive materials give rise to risks for the current generation (e.g., in the potential for disaster when reactors melt down) but high-level radioactive waste from nuclear energy production presents a serious intergenerational problem for which an acceptable final solution or its implementation remains elusive. Moreover, nuclear energy technologies have specific social and political consequences. For example, they have been said to be authoritarian technologies (Winner, 1980), requiring cen-tralized authority, secrecy, and technocratic decision-making. While some of these problems could have been foreseen before nuclear energy technologies were introduced, others only arose after these technologies were already integrated into the social and infrastructural fabric of our lives. Addition-ally, new technologies (e.g., Generation III, III+ and IV reactors) are still being developed, bringing with them new and uncertain hazards and risks. Ignorance and uncertainty about the possible deleterious effects of introducing a new technology are inevitable, especially if the technology is complex, large time-scales are involved, or risks depend on social or political factors unforeseen in the design stage. However, this should not deter us from developing and intro-ducing new technologies. Rather, it should motivate us to organize these ‘exper-iments’ with new technologies in society in such a way that we can learn about their possible hazards and risks as effectively and responsibly as possible (van de Poel, 2011, 2015). In this way, it is possible to minimize risks and avoid unwant-ed moral, social or political developments. However, organizing such experi-ments responsibly also means that one could come to the conclusion that continuing an experiment is no longer responsible or desirable. Should we be prepared for such a scenario, and if so, how could we do that? One possible strategy to tackle this issue is that the technology and its introduction should be reversible. The aim of this thesis is to further explore this strategy by answering the following main research question (RQ) and accompanying subquestions (SQ):RQ: What are the implications of reversibility for the responsible develop-ment and implementation of nuclear energy technologies?SQ1: Under what conditions can nuclear energy technologies be considered reversible?SQ2: Why should nuclear energy technologies be reversible?SQ3: If so, how could the reversibility of nuclear energy technologies be achieved?After the introductory chapter 1, the chapters that form the main body of this dissertation each provide a distinct contribution to answering the three subques-tions and, by extension, the main research question. Guided by three historical case studies of nuclear energy technology development (i.e., India, France and the USA), chapter 2 answers the first subquestion by formulating the two condi-tions under which it can be considered reversible, i.e., 1) the ability to stop the further development and deployment of a that technology in society, and 2) the ability to undo the undesirable outcomes (material, institutional or symbolic) of the development and deployment of the technology. Chapter 3 subsequently tackles the second subquestion by establishing the general desirability of technological reversibility by virtue of its relation to responsibility in Emmanuel Levinas’ ethical phenomenology. It argues that technology development is a legitimate response to responsibility but inevitably falls short of the responsibility that inspires it, incessantly calling for technological and political change in the process. Having thus argued that nuclear energy technologies should ideally be reversible, chap-ters 4 and 5 work towards specific strategies to achieve technological reversibil-ity. Chapter 4 first investigates the processes that make it difficult to stop the further development and implementation of a nuclear energy technology in society, thus provid-ing input on how to fulfill the first condition for the reversibility of nuclear energy technologies. To do so, it presents a phenomenological perspective on technology and its adoption based on the work of Alfred Schutz. It also explores different ways in which technology adoption drives the processes of path depend-ence towards technological lock-in. Chapter 5 examines the history of geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste in the USA. It identifies a number of concrete policy pitfalls that could lead to lock-in and that should consequently be avoided. It also presents a number of general design strategies that could facilitate the undoing of undesirable consequences of a technology, thus providing input on how to fulfill the second condition for the reversibility of nuclear energy technol-ogies.Chapter 6 summarizes the central findings of the thesis and explains how these help to answer the research questions. On top of this, it reflects on a number of complications connected to reversibility considerations. Based on this, it is concluded that the question of irreversibility and reversibility is context- and technology-specific and a matter of degree. The chapter concludes with a reflec-tion on generalizations and limitations of the results. Finally, chapter 7 discusses the implications of this dissertation’s results for responsibly experimenting with nuclear energy technologies in society

A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Knowledge Construction through Blended Learning

This paper results from an educational research project that was undertaken by the School of Architecture, at the University of Liverpool funded by the Higher Education Academy in UK. The research explored technology driven shifts in architectural design studio education, identified their cognitive effects on design learning and developed an innovative blended learning approach that was implemented at a masters level digital design studio. The contribution of the research and the proposed approach to the existing knowledge and practice are twofold. Firstly, it offers a new pedagogical framework which integrates social, technical and cognitive dimensions of knowledge construction. And secondly, it offers a unique operational model through the integration of both mediational and instrumental use of digital media. The proposed model provides a useful basis for the effective mobilization of next generation learning technologies which can effectively respond to the learning challenges specific to architectural design knowledge and its means of creation

Debunking myths in CAQDAS use and coding in qualitative data analysis: experiences with and reflections on grounded theory methodology

'The author deliberates firstly the primacy of grounded theory as a methodology and secondly the primacy of grounded theory coding as a method in deciding on CAQDAS use in his research. In the first section of this paper, the author weighs the extent to which his research draws and departs from the principles and practices of grounded theory methodology (GTM). In examining the impact of cultures and religions on women's human rights in Malaysia the author has used for example hypothesis-guided criteria for sampling. This is strictly speaking not in the original sense a grounded theory approach. In the paper, the author makes transparent the extent to which GTM has informed his work in enhancing the qualitative research and in highlighting the uses and limits of GTM, the author poses the question to what extent has the author demystified its paradigmatic status in CAQDAS and its homogenising effects. In the second section, the author discusses the dominance of coding in qualitative data analysis and the author argues that the pitfall of reifying coding as analyses can be avoided through a researcher's reflexivity and agency (self-determination) combined with a pragmatic view and the use of codes as a means and not as an end, essentially, grounded theory coding. The author discusses whether CAQDAS use as a tool facilitates the rigour of GTM and the transparency of grounded theory coding as method as manifested in one's audit trail, and whether this in turn constitute research that is more accountable, innovative and effective.' (author's abstract)

Architecture’s Poetic Instrumentality. Developing the Critical, Political, and Ethical Capacities of Architectural Artifacts

The PhD thesis Architecture’s Poetic Instrumentality is rooted in and driven by an enthusiasm of architectural practice—an enthusiasm for conceiving, constructing and deploying architectural artifacts that, as poetic instruments, intend to have an agency within urban environments. The title puts in tension the two notions of instrument and poesis (from the Greek poiesis, referring to a making activity but moreover to an activity of making up, situated here in those encountering architecture). Preparing the architectural artifact as a poetic instrument then puts the partly contingent adventures it helps affording at the center of the inquiry. Poesis, as an activity of making up, of sense-making, and agency, as a dynamic able to invoke such acts of poesis, are considered in this thesis as endowed with a transformative potential. They explicitly bring into scope the realm of architectural reception: the many uses, appropriations, occupations, and negotiations of architecture. In order to explore such poesis and agency, a variety of architectural artifacts have been developed within the time span of the research, spread across different collaborations. These artifacts propel the research, giving particular substance to the main methodological approach, that of research-through-practice. The exploration of a poetic instrumentality has been pursued through an exploration of architecture’s capacity to act critically, politically, and ethically, within situations. Such capacity is often, according to a variety of contemporary authors, atrophied or at least left partly unaddressed. Answering calls to re-activate architecture in that sense, this research aims to substantiate contributions that can help counter this deficit. It does so through edifying a heterogeneous set of architectural artifacts, developed as well as deployed within real urban surroundings and situations, working as acupuncture-like interventions. The research also develops a set of approaches, strategies, and attitudes. The audience is multiple as both those professionally practicing and conceiving of architecture and those practicing architecture through encountering it within daily situations are targeted. Architecture’s Poetic Instrumentality is edified on two main experimenting grounds. One is the educational design studio COmplicating MAchines / COmplicating INteriors, the other the architecture firm STUDIOLOarchitectuur. Each advances a differently constrained terrain for experimentation, raising different challenges, assembling different contributions. What links the experimenting on both grounds together and characterizes all artifacts of the research is that they all seek to include dynamics often neglected in architecture: critical, political, and ethical dynamics; dynamics of projectivity, negotiation, conflict, dissensus, agonism; para-functional dynamics. Substantiating this inclusion has led to an other kind of architectural artifacts and to other ways of doing architecture, conceived not as an alternative to architecture, but as a promise and capacity that fundamentally reside within architecture and its artifacts