Deconstructing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender victim of sex trafficking: Harm, exceptionality and religion–sexuality tensions

Contrary to widespread belief, sex trafficking also targets lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) communities. Contemporary social and political constructions of victimhood lie at the heart of regulatory policies on sex trafficking. Led by the US Department of State, knowledge about LGBT victims of trafficking constitutes the newest frontier in the expansion of criminalization measures. These measures represent a crucial shift. From a burgeoning range of preemptive measures enacted to protect an amorphous class of ‘all potential victims’, now policies are heavily premised on the risk posed by traffickers to ‘victims of special interest’. These constructed identities, however, are at odds with established structures. Drawing on a range of literatures, the core task of this article is to confront some of the complexities and tensions surrounding constructions of LGBT trafficking victims. Specifically, the article argues that discourses of ‘exceptional vulnerability’ and the polarized notions of ‘innocence’ and ‘guilt’ inform hierarchies of victimhood. Based on these insights, the article argues for the need to move beyond monolithic understandings of victims, by reframing the politics of harm accordingly

Being user-oriented: convergences, divergences, and the potentials for systematic dialogue between disciplines and between researchers, designers, and providers

The challenge this panel addresses is drawn from intersecting literature reviews and critical commentaries focusing on: 1) user studies in multiple fields; and 2) the difficulties of bringing different disciplines and perspectives to bear on user‐oriented research, design, and practice. 1 The challenge is that while we have made some progress in collaborative work, we have some distance to go to become user‐oriented in inter‐disciplinary and inter‐perspective ways. The varieties of our approaches and solutions are, as some observers suggest, an increasing cacophony. One major difficulty is that most discussions are solution‐oriented, offering arguments of this sort ‐‐ if only we addressed users in this way… Each solution becomes yet another addition to the cacophony. This panel implements a central approach documented for its utility by communication researchers and long used by communication mediators and negotiators ‐‐ that of focusing not on communication but rather on meta‐communication: communicating about communication. The intent in the context of this panel is to help us refocus attention from too frequent polarizations between alternative solutions to the possibility of coming to understand what is behind the alternatives and where they point to experientially‐based convergences and divergences, both of which might potentially contribute to synergies. The background project for this panel comes from a series of in‐depth interviews with expert researchers, designers, and providers in three field groupings ‐‐ library and information science; human computer interaction/information technology; and communication and media studies. One set of interviews involved 5‐hour focus groups with directors of academic and public libraries serving 44 colleges and universities in central Ohio; the second involved one‐on‐one interviews averaging 50 minutes with 81 nationally‐internationally known experts in the 3 fields, 25‐27 interviews per field. Using Dervin\u27s Sense‐Making Methodological approach to interviewing, the expert interviews of both kinds asked each interviewee: what he/she considered to be the big unanswered questions about users and what explained why the questions have not been answered; and, what he/she saw as hindering versus helping in attempts to communicate about users across disciplinary and perspective gaps. 2 The panel consists of six teams, two from each field. Prior to the panel presentation at ASIST, each team will have read the set of interviews and completed impressionistic essays of what patterns and themes they saw as emerging. At this stage, team members will purposively not homogenize their differences and most will write solo‐authored essays that will be placed on a web‐site accessible to ASIST members prior to the November meeting. In addition, at least one systematic analysis will be completed and available online. 3 At the ASIST panel, each team\u27s leader will present a brief and intentionally provocative impressionist account of what his/her team came to understand about our struggles communicating across fields and perspectives about users. Again, each team will purposively not homogenize its own differences in viewpoints, but rather highlight them as fodder for discussion. A major purpose will be to invite audience members to join the panel in discussion. At least 20 minutes will be left open for this purpose

Effect of adaptive control on the LED street luminaire lifetime and on the lifecycle costs of a lighting installation

Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Aalto University Energy Efficiency Research Program (AEF) and by the Academy of Finland Flagship Programme, Photonics Research and Innovation (PREIN), decision number: 320167. Publisher Copyright: © The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 2021. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.We report for the first time the effect of ageing due to adaptive control of lighting on the lifecycle costs of luminaire installations. Two types of LED street luminaire were aged (1) as the luminaire lit for 9 hours and then switched off for 3 hours and (2) under intensive ageing using adaptive control conditions mimicking presence of vehicles, where the luminaires were switched with 30-second interval between 100% and 20% power within the cycle of (1). The test continued for 32,000 hours. Luminaire lifetime was found to decrease by 10% due to the intensive adaptive control, which exaggerates the ageing as compared to real traffic conditions. We estimate that a realistic rate of dimming cycles would decrease the luminaire lifetime by 0–2%, increasing the lifecycle costs of a lighting installation by 0–0.7%. With a traffic-aware control system, capable of 50% energy saving in lighting, the lifecycle costs are estimated to reduce by 25% as compared to a similar LED luminaire installation without traffic-awarecontrol, outweighing the costs due to the reduced lifetime. The smart controlling of lighting is considered as a useful way to meet future energy saving targets.Peer reviewe