New Big Science in Focus : Perspectives on ESS and MAX IV

This anthology is about new big science, approached through perspectives from law, sustainability studies, sociology of science and technology, history, human geography and information studies. In focus are the two large experimental facilities being built in Lund: the European Spallation Source (ESS) and MAX IV. Put centre stage are the communities that launch, build, use, host, and benefit from these science facilities.New big science facilities are large in their physical footprints, their costs, and their ambitions. Expectations abound and are in constant production. This anthology captures the opportunity to study these complex science facilities in the making – at the juncture where expectations meet reality – asking questions about what possibilities, constraints, and risks these projects entail.This anthology is the outcome of an interdisciplinary research theme at the Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies at Lund University. The editors Josephine V. Rekers and Kerstin Sandell are both social scientists, affiliated with the Department of Human Geography and the Department of Gender Studies respectively

Kritiska gemenskaper: att skriva feministisk och postkolonial vetenskap

Antologin Kritiska gemenskaper är en vänbok till professor Diana Mulinari vid Lunds universitet. Medverkande i antologin är: Malinda Andersson, Signe Arnfred, Anna Bredström, Cynthia Cockburn, Paulina de los Reyes, Maud Eduards, Suvi Keskinen, Wuokko Knocke, Gail Lewis, Mia Liinason, Carina Listerborn, Åsa Lundqvist, Catrin Lundström, Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Irene Molina, Anders Neergaard, Tiina Rosenberg, Maja Sager, Kerstin Sandell, Ulrika Schmauch, Rebecca Selberg, Aina Tollefsen,Chia-Ling Yang, Alexandra Ålun

Framgångsrika homosexuella akademiker: ett villkorat innanförskap?

Kerstin Sandell har gjort en studie utifrån homosexuella akademikers erfarenheter. Sandell visar att för homosexuella, liksom för andra minoritiserande grupper, ingår i de vardagliga interaktionerna allt från vardagshomofobi till uttalad diskriminering. Speciellt lyfter Sandell att den vardagliga gemenskapen på institutionerna präglas av heterograbbighet, något som skapar en marginaliserad position, både genom att den utesluter och genom en önskan hos de intervjuade att inte delta i denna form av gemenskap. Sandell benämner den position som homosexuella akademiker har som en villkorad inkludering, där homosexualitet antas inte spelar roll i ett förespeglat tolerant sammanhang, men ändå gör det

Contemporary use and abuse of science – a challenge for feminist studies

In this paper I will explore two trends that I argue pose significant challenges to feminist technoscience studies as a knowledge-producing endeavour. The first is Sweden democrats’ use of figures as facts, with the hope of changing society into a fascist one. The other is the investment in natural science research infrastructure with the hope of solving societies most pressing problems. Sweden democrats have a persistent use of statistics as part of their political message, where they rely on the legitimacy that science gives to figures as facts. This forces ‘us’ to show that their figures are wrong, and thus arguing that figures can be facts. This I think is an effort for many feminist technoscience scholars, as they/we have invested in studying how scientific facts are made, turning ’us’ irrevocably critical to figures as (positivist or realist, apolitical) facts.The other trend is that of big investments in (natural) science infrastructure, as the two large-scale facilities under construction in Lund (ESS and MAX IV). These are heavily invested with hopes of solving some of contemporary societies most pressing problems – sustainability, health, energy, security. The core practice is, again, the natural science experiment, using the very same epistemological foundations that we are forced to defend in the face of the Sweden Democrats. Although here the feminist technoscience scholar might want to study the stabilization of facts in science and further argue that the research endeavours presented as science hides a depolitication of contemporary problems. And, not to forget, channels money into male dominated scientific areas. I will argue that feminist technoscience studies as part of science are facing a double challenge of on the one hand finding ways to defend figures as facts and on the other to stay committed to a constructivist understanding of science and of science as politics by other means