Report about the first AIBR congress

On July 7 we attended the first international conference held by AIBR anthropology: "Human beings: cultures, origins and destiny." The congress was held in the Autonomous University of Madrid, in the town of Cantoblanco and there we could listen different professionals from several fields, in addition to anthropology.

Our group presented two papers: "How can we imagine the scenarios ?, Ebola epidemics." And "Biosafety and speed. Acceleration operators on the Ebola epidemics", both of them were well received by the audience .

In them, we try to reflect the work done during this year of research and also present our group.

It was amazing how these different disciplines (social psychology, sociology, anthropology) can reach woven between them, forming an holistic and hegemonic whole that  allows us to have a broader view of the social diversity.

The Congress attracted more than 800 people from different countries and more than 100 thematic panels. To POBICS it was a real pleasure to share place with different themes and research covering the social fabric and thus learn a lot thanks to the different views we could take both in the panels and in the debates or the contributions that members of Congress hade made about our presentations.

In this vein, we can highlight some of the tables in which we participate by our thematic affinity: Relevance of traditional medicine and cultural health care, Casada Patricia G. Garcia; Bankruptcy and paradoxes of medical-preventive speech in blood storage umbilical cord, P. Santoro; or the Participation in the definition of future health care of A. Toledo, for instance.

The experience was pleasant and the conference included an excellent organization and logistical assistance, carried out by AIBR during these days. they did not miss any detail, in addition to the friendliness of the volunteers, participants of Congress and the association itself. Furthermore, we enjoyed a welcome cocktail from a busy route through the capital. The finale took him to party in the landmark botanical garden at the Complutense University of Madrid.

This Congress has allowed to us to observe the displayed map of the rich plurality of human beings and of the various research groups working in other parts of the peninsula or abroad, entering a little more in the forms of "doing" and their respective points of view.

From POBICS, we want to thank to AIBR for the organization and for the opportunity given to us to be able to expose our work even without not being part of the anthropology strictly.

This post would not be complete without thanking the two congressmen who presented the panel with us: Ana Toledo for its revitalization on the table and Serena Triuzzi for the technological assistance.

We want to each of the speakers in the round of questions and their suggestions. We finished the course with the latter activity and a very good taste. We hope the next Congress eagerly look forward to presenting our new jobs. 

Until then, networks will help us to close the gap, to share our respective knowledge and keep in touch.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful 

citizens can change the world. 

Indeed, those are the only thing that ever has.

-M. Mead.-

Photo Credit: Pedro, the member of our staff that came to the Congress.

Bad news for our group! :( our application for the FPU's grant has been denied

After six and half months, the Ministry of Education has published the provisional lists of persons who has achieved this grant. Unfortunately, our candidate Enrique Baleriola is not in this list. For this reason, we want to publish the project we planned to deploy in case of getting it.

Title: 

Pandemics and Society. The new biorisk management in the European Union.

Introduction:

The history of the XXI century has begun with a deep development of biomedical knowledge and probably, the progress in this field will become the milestone that will mark the development of that century. The emergence of a Global Health, the increase of the mechanisms of detection and alert to the emergence of new infectious vectors, or the creation of new strategies to manage biohazards are some examples of such milestones.

More specifically, biohazards have become so important topic that various local, national and international institutions consider it one of their priorities. Thus, the World Health Organization has produced many documents and has created observatories to prevent the spread of infectious unknown vectors (WHO, 2008); the European Union has prepared various guidelines (EU, 2002); and they have also grown in importance the Centre for Disease Control of the United States and its European counterpart, the European Centre for Disease Control. Moreover, from some years, it has added to this interest the Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO, 2007), the World Trade Organization (WTO, 2008), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2000) or the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2011). With regard to our country, we should mention that there are several organizations that intertwine with the above functions, such as ministries of the Spanish State (Foreign, Health, Home Office...) and hospitals and reference laboratories (Carlos III Hospital in Madrid and Hospital Clinic in Barcelona).

Along with the above policy initiatives, it has begun to generate an enormous techno-scientific knowledge focused on the management of the biohazard as HealthMap or other applications seeking to develop early warning systems in which citizens have a relevant importance or the grown investment in BigData research (see Nambiar, Sethi, Bhardwaj and Vargheese, 2013; Young, 2014) as a complementary data source to that provided by health centers.

This situation has meant that for several years in the social sciences arise some studies trying to elucidate the role to be played by citizen, that in most cases, is alien to the latest discoveries and the advancement of knowledge in these areas. In this sense we can mention the work of authors such as Rose and Novas (2003); Petryna (2004); or Barker (2010); The results are of great relevance to examine: a) how biomedical knowledge impacts on our society; b) how citizenship reappropriates and put into use such knowledge c) and how the recent development of biohazards transformed our surveillance systems and general security.

All previous studies reported that in today's knowledge societies can no longer sustain the idea that users, public or citizens have little or no say in relation to advances in biomedical matter given the complexity of the same. On the contrary, they say that you are born a whole political and scientific tradition which holds that techno-scientific knowledge recipients should participate in its development and implementation. Such is a value that strengthens both our own production democracies expert knowledge. And this citizen involvement in the production and implementation of knowledge in biohazard is defined by some as a new biohazard management strategy as opposed to the classical risk calculations performed epidemiologists.

In this new management biohazard especially it emphasizes the creation of fictional scenarios but with a very close relation to our reality as a basic tool of knowledge production (Collier, 2008; Lakoff 2008). For them, citizenship is a key player in the decision making and implementation of protocols. In our country, the lack of scientific studies in this area is remarkable although those contributions Tirado, Gomez and Rocamora, 2015; Tirado, Baleriola, Giordani and Torrejon, 2014 or Tirado, Baleriola Gomez, Giordani and Torrejon, 2014; and the  R & D project to which this work will be attached, entitled: "Health and technoscience.Citizen participation in the processes of social appropriation of knowledge and technological design "(CSO2014-59136-P). In all of them is examined how citizens participate in scientific and technical products in terms of biohazard. In this line of analysis this project is framed.

Objectives:

Our investigation begins with the following hypothesis: the social appropriation of expert knowledge and public participation are a democratic value. This knowledge can be enhanced by analyzing the mechanisms that establish parameters to describe the permanent interaction between laymen and experts. In that sense, we propose the following objective:

1. To analyze the dimensions involved in the social appropriation of expertise knowledge in the in biosafety and biohazard realm. That is, to examine the psychosocial, cultural and individual elements that can operate in that exercise.

And, in order to achieve this goal, we propose the following specific objectives:

1.1. Determining the choice of stakeholders involved in the development of protocols on biosafety.

1.2 Analyze biosafety protocols used in research laboratories, specialized health centers in contagion from infectious vectors and military units specialized in biological warfare.

1.3 Analyze how are used and implemented protocols on biosafety.

1.4 Analyze how to make and mean daily practices related to biological threats and risks.

1.5 Design and conduct a citizen panel in which experts and laymen share their views on the knowledge produced in the field of biohazard.

The choice of this target due to the following reasons:

a) First, it is an area of ​​great importance in our societies.

b) Secondly, it is a space that has not been developed in our country too many analysis on the social appropriation of knowledge and public participation.

c) Finally, it is an area in which the relationship between experts and lay people is particularly close, since biomedical knowledge (biohazard dimensions, etc.) is especially present in our daily lives.

The present research proposal and its objectives are suited to a brand of new research interest being carried out internationally about the social implications of scientific knowledge in biotechnology and biosafety and biohazard (See for example Canada, 2013; Dobson, Barker and Taylor, 2013; Samimian-Darash, 2011, 2009; Lakoff, 2009; Carduff, 2008; Lakoff and Collier, 2008; or Collier, Lakoff and Rabinow, 2004). Similarly, it conforms to the national strategy of research projects R & D in the sense that is marked in areas of basic concern such as: health, safety and social change. In addition, as mentioned, be framed in an R + D + I recently granted.

However, despite this context, there is not still research on the specific mechanisms used by laymen, especially in the field of health are examined, to appropriate expertise and to intervene and participate in the generation of new knowledge and technologies. Therefore, our research would be a new contribution to deepen in these aspects. The reasons why we have chosen the field of biohazard as concrete space within the field of health will allow us to examine both the mechanisms of social appropriation of expert knowledge and the elements that characterize the citizen participation in the production of it are as follows :

a) It is a space that has become particularly strength and relevance in the world of health (remember the recent outbreak of Ebola, news of N1H1, etc.).

b) It is an area that has not yet received much attention from the social sciences.

c) It forms a block of analysis that neither the rest of Europe nor our country have developed too many studies on the role that the expert-lay relationship can play in the development and implementation of its techno-scientific production.

Given the above, perform this task in research is important because many experts and international institutions like the WHO believe that the great problem of biohazard management today is how protocols are received by their users. Knowledge of infection, its spread, prevention, care, etc. usually it greeted with alarm by the non-expert citizen and often such reception leads to a misunderstanding of it as unnecessary situations of collective panic. Therefore, an examination of how the non-experts receive such knowledge and how they appropriate it would have an overall scientific impact and other more local and targeted. The first one would allow us to understand better the mechanisms involved in social appropriation of expert knowledge on the part of the laity and, the second one, will help to develop biosecurity protocols that would allow to overcome the problems mentioned above.

Photo Credit: Chris Ford

Biocapitalism, state of exception, and scenarios.

After several weeks shaping a new paper about biocapitalism (you can read about our first ideas here), we are finalizing it with new concepts and theories where our recent seminaries have had a clear influence (particularly, the Agamben's reading). 

Finally, the paper is about a brief review about the biopolitical proposal given by Agamben, and then we offer our particular vision. The key idea is the political axis is not longer the "leading actor" in our contemprary time about the law or govermentality, but it is the techno-scientific knowledge about the bios and life. Despite some theories like Rose for instance, we propose that this shift till the techno-scientific rule is fostered by the scenario concept.

What is then, a scenario?, it is the techno-scientifical injuction where the classical and positive conception about the Scientific Method is substituted by the creation of fictional futures within the preparedness logic of government. Our novelty results by placing the scenario-creation before the prearedness. Scenarios, then, are the new state of exception within this new key role of bioscience and biotechnology. This state of exception creates deterritorialized life flows without a main figure (unlike for Agamben, which talks about the Homo Sacer figure).

How we explain the performance of this new logic? Through the equipment concept given by Foucault. In the paper, we offer some examples about how it works, and you can read it when the paper is available. We want to offer a new conception about the role of bioscience in our contemporary life, and some points about a new state of exception articulated by the same kind of knowledge. 

Photo Credit: Flickr, user Wes Peck.

Looking for new documents and information: Biosurveillance and Early Warning System

After some weeks planning new papers and the directions for upcoming researches, now we are focused on gather new empirical data in order to analyze it.

The topics we are analyzing and what we want to collect data is about Early Warning System and some biosurveillance practices carried out by general people.

In this vein, we want to achieve some documents to deepen how Early Warning Systems works, particularlly we want to know:

• What is a "general" Early Warning System

• Lay people, or citizenship, has operated as Early Warning System anytime in any outbreak?

• In an affirmative case, how did it happen?

• Where we can find information about it?

• We are very interesting in some "apps" for smartphone as HealthMap or Outbreaks Near Me. How does it works? 

Well, this is the kind of questions we have. We are consulting some webs as the WHO's gate or the CDC's website, but we would be happier if someone could give us some papers, protocols or any other document which responds to this. 

Photo Credit: Flickr, user Nate Laverdure

Welcome to our webpage!

First, I want to thank everyone who yesterday participated in the question I posed in ResearchGate, I hope more people participate and help to enrich de discussion, I am sure your answers would like everybody, particularly to our research group. 

The post of today is about one issue we was talking the last week. Is about one project we had in mind since the last spring, but for several reasons, we cannot take it off till this week. This project is the construction of a webpage where we can upload our works, reflections, and thus, release our field of knowledge but everyone interested in it.

Although the website is still under construction, you can visit it here and take a look to the main sections and if you want, give us some feedback about it. His name is "Portraits of Bios in the 21th Century-POBI21" (the name is also provisional), and we want to build some forums of discussion about biosurveillance and anthropology, social implications of this realm of the science and technology...

Thumbnail of POBI21

Webpage is organized in six sections: home, about, team, documents, our researches and events. Home is only the greeting and the ways of contact with us (Facebook and Twitter will be available soon). About is the section where we present our aim and our theoretical framework. Then, in team, you can check our personal bios as well as log in to our Academia.edu profiles. The main section is documents, splitted in Publications (papers and other academic outcomes), Working Papers (what are we doing now) and Seminary Summaries (some abstracts about our open seminaries). Our researches is still under construction, but soon you will find the topics we are working and other stuff. Finally, in events, you will see the next congress, meetings, seminaries, etc. where you can find some about our work.

The website is also created in order to link other research groups interested in our topics, and to enlarge the contacts for a later collaborations with people of worldwide. 

We will be publish several events where we will participate (not necessarily organized by us) and the meetings with public assistance (as seminaries where we will read some papers or books). We will be refreshing this section periodically, so I recommend checking it regularly!

This is the webpage: Portraits of Bios in the 21th Century

Photo Credit: Personal photo

New virtual discussion: The use of Grounded Theory in qualitative research

In the current post I want to write about one new discussion emerged in ResearchGate (a social net where people with academic works can publish and share their papers and other kind of stuff and discuss whatever topic). The theme of this discussion is about the use of Grounded Theory and Case Study, their differences and utilities in qualitative research. 

As usually I have done, I offer here the transcription of the discussion, particularlly the central question and my answer, but you can consult the full discussion with several interesting answers here:

Key question:

"What's the difference between case study and grounded theory research? Does it make sense to use both?

Does one only use one research strategy or several? Is it possible/recommendable to use both GT and case study research for triangulation purposes? where is the difference??"

And my anwers was: 

"For me, Case Study and Grounded Theory are distint but compatible. That's to say, Case Study is the study of one phenomenon deeply, througout several ways (i.e) if you are studying gender discrimination, a case study is to gather empirical material from interviews, documents, ethnography... and thus, to know the gender discrimination.

About Grounded Theory, is a process of research "backwards" than usual, that's to say, tipically a research starts with an hipotesis and theories, and then you collect material in order to confirm (or not) this theories. Grounded theory works beginning from the data collect and ends with the theories, at the basis of the empirical data 

If you want, in my blog I have a post talking about Study Case and another way to "channel" the empirical material which differs from Grounded Theory, called "Thick Description", it can serve for your investigation better than Grounded Theory, I guess.

This is the link: http://ebaes.blogspot.com.es/2014/12/methodology-in-social-studies-of.html"

Although in my research group, we don't use Grounded Theory currently, is a very interesting methodology in order to "assemble" the discourse or the "product" of the empirical data' interpretation. I am sure if you read some answer in the discussion, you can make sense about his use. What do you think about Grounded Theory? Do you know any alternative to Grounded Theory or Study Case? Do you use this methodologies in different forms? You can join the discussion or we can talk here.

Photo Credit: Flickr, user Sam Ladner

Pandemics, Bioterrorism and International Security

The post of today is about one discussion carried out yesterday in the LinkedIn group called "Pandemics, Bioterrorism and International Security", where Ruth Mclure has sent me several and useful information about maps in the way we are researching currently.

The origin of this topic is one new appeared in Yahoo.com where is alerted about 15 children died due to the new strain of flu (H3N2) (you can read it here: http://yhoo.it/14mQcq8), and it is explained how each case is reported and how they are "counted" in order to stablish the boundary of a epidemics.

The sequence of the discussion' post can be read here http://linkd.in/1BHdFx0 but I am go to copy it here:

Me: "So interesenting new. But I have a "naïf" question that I'm sure you can answer: how are counted the cases and what is the procedure in order to report new cases in this kind of outbreak?? There is some kind of biosurveillance? and, in this case... how it works? 

Thanks in advanced."

Ruth Mclure: "Hi Enrique, you live in Spain, so things may be different there than here in the USA. 

When the Physicians or other Health practitioners Diagnose this Influenza Virus in Children and in Adults, forms are made out and forward to their local Health Departments for Case Counting and then those Cases are then forward to the State Health Departments, then the State Health Departments, Shares that information to the CDC (Communicable Disease Center) that is located in Atlanta, Georgia. There use to be Formal Cards made out with Patient Data on them, so the data of certain needed information on these patients actually will be counted as a case. One Person is equal to a case of Flu. Local Health Departments have an Epidemiology Department where these workers go into the fields, and do various functions on a broad base of Different Diseases, and keeps tallies (counts) on many of the Infectious Diseases. The Field Epidemiologists on the ground in South Africa are doing the same thing with Case finding, but with the Flu, these cases are all ready diagnosed, so you have the REPORTING side of this Flu Season. 

There are two different links that I will give to you, and I will give to you the first one that takes you over the the Flu Section of the CDC on the Internet Web. 

Here is the first Link of the Flu Department/Section on the Flu in CDC 

Title of the Link is Influenza (Flu) 

htp://www.cdc.gov/flu/index.htm 

if this above does not go through then just put this in your Search Bar cdc.gov/flu to see if you will be taken over to that Flu Site, or a page that will give you information about the present Flu. 

The next title is Situation Summary on Influenza A (H3N2) Variant Viruses ("H3N2v") 

Again if my Link below does not take you over than put the title of this Section into your Search Bar 

htp://www.cdc.gov/flu/swineflu/h3n2v-situation.htm 

or just put in cdc.gov/flu/swineflu "

Me: "Highly interesting what you say, Ruth. Thanks a lot, tomorrow I'll check the links you've posted. 

I have asked it because in my research group we are finding out how current maps of diseases with arrows and illustrated vectors between countries are built. Here in Europe (at least in Spain) we cannot find epidemiological stations as you said or sentinel sites... and this is tough in relation with the ebola outbreak, for instance."

Ruth Mclure: "Enrique, you may find this Link, if it will go through, something that might work for you in your Research Class.

http://apps.who.int/ithmap/

That map has never diseases on it. I do not have the name of he map.

Check to see if the link will go through."

The last question I have is how "risk" is defined in this map, a term that I guess is defined similarly by other epidemics experts and physicians. But if you have some to say or a definition of risk, your contribution will be welcome!

Finally, I want to thank to Ruth Mclure their explanations and contributions. She is a writer and editor about several topics, including epidemics and outbreaks.

Photo Credit: Flickr, user Stéfan.

Global Assemblages

In the last post I wrote talking about maps and how them works in relation with biosecurity, I pointed out one concept that I want to explain better today. This is global assemblage.

Global assemblage is a concept highlighted by Collier and Ong and that is applied to several currently problems from an anthropological view. Thus, in the book titled Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, mentioned authors and others (for instance, Paul Rabinow) talk about this conception in bioscience, right, ethics or populations.

However, what is a Global Assemblage? In Collier and Ong words:

<<Global assemblages are sites for the formation and reformation of what we will call, following Paul Rabinow, anthropological problems. They are domains in which the forms and values of individual and collective existence are problematized or at stake, in the sense that they are subject to technological, political, and ethical reflection and intervention>>

Instead we are not work exactly this concept, we are using some approximations that follows the same sense of one key feature of global assemblages, that is, the quality to de-territorialize and re-territorialize. For us, a Global Assemblage would be a kind of operator or dispositif (In the Foucaultian sense) constituted by some techno-scientific elements that can deploy their webs in a variety of social scales (within a seamless as techno-scientific-social works in the Actor Network-Theory): macro (European Union,-level, World-Health Organization-level); mezzo (States-level) and micro (citizenship-level). Thus, one of this techno-scientific element is the realm of biosecurity

What we are paying attention is in this question: how the techno-scientific network of biosecurity is being articulated in those different scales? All kind of answer will be welcomed because we do not have response yet. Nonetheless, one way of research would be understand the macro and mezzo scales because of the practices carried out at the micro level. Some apps for smartphone like HealthMap are able to see all diseases around the world in the current moment and further, registry any new if we are alerted for it. After that, the mezzo and consequently the macro level would be activated in order to check these alarms out and carry out actions in order to cut them off or prevent a major outbreak or pandemics (inside the preparedness logic).

Another possibility in order to apply the global assemblages concept to biosecurity would be to try understand how them are linked with a global vision of the world given by disease’ maps that are more and more frequents accompanying research’ texts about one new outbreak. In fact, when we look to these maps, we are observing not only global-scale events, but also the folding of little practices that biosecurity as a global-assemblage is constantly re-territorializing in local territories; adapting and keeping their global form each time.

References:

Ong, A. y Collier, S. (2005).  Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Oxford: Blackwell.

Photo Credit: Flickr, user NASA Goddar Space Flight Center

About maps

As I pointed out in the last post, movement is a key concept in the new regime of (bio)politics, becoming a central issue of what we conceive as cinepolitics. Thus, the topic of today is about one source of information understudied yet in social sciences: maps.

We are studying maps as a technology-as-mediator as Latour says, that is, we conceive maps as an element inside of a net where the actant (in this case, biosurveillance), is constituted. We are currently managing several theories in order to analyse maps, as the Panorama Concept by Latour, or the difference between observation andsurveillance that Michel Serres proposes. We are also trying to apply the Deleuzian concept of diagram in order to explain how maps works as an element that folds scales between a very local event and a global issue, deterritorializing and reterritorializing the cinepolitics entanglement and completing the management process in a total-surveillance-world. We will write about an interesting topic soon, called Global Assemblages.

However, what kind of maps and why this kind of illustrations? Inside Actor-Network Theory there is a large tradition of social studies of sciences where images, maps and graphics have an important role as an immutable mobile, that is, as a key form to translate the knowledge created in a laboratory to expand it outside and with the purpose of connecting with other laboratories, sources of fund, citizenships, power positions, etc. This kind of information are very important in ethnographical studies as Latour or Law as we can read in the classic study of how a scientist works in order to achieve a graphic where is gathered the whole knowledge, practises and others elements that shape a heart’ rat performance.

Hence, we have collected several CDC and WHO maps in order to study infectious vectors movement (ebolavirus, N1H1, AIDS, SARS…). I cannot advance much conclusions, but what we are inquiring is a shift in the form as biosurveillance works from this spotlight in the movement at the beginning of XXI century.

References:

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. New York: Oxford University Press.

Serres, M. (2008). The Five Senses. London: Continuum. 

Tirado, F. (2008). Michel Foucault: biopolítica e intuición de la cinepolítica. Congress: Aportes de Michel Foucault al pensamiento contemporáneo. Barcelona.

Photo Credit: Flickr user, Ann Martin.

Cinepolitics and Biosecurity

The post I want to publish today is about a new condition we are researching in relation with biosecurity and the politic management, surveillance and power.

In fact, as I have already written a post where I talk about biosecurity and biopolitics, pointing out some short ideas mentioning the work of Foucault, Agamben or Negri, for instance. The reason for the brevity of that post is we are deploying a work where biopolitics would give away to cinepolitics, that is to say, the management of movement or flows, and no longer souls or bodies as it happens in biopolitics.

However, what is cinepolitics exactly? As Tirado (2010) says, consists in a highlight into the Foucault notion of movement within biopolitics. In this sense, Foucault assumes that movement is one variable that is added to either vital and biologics that shape biopolitics. Nonetheless, in cinepolitics the key concept is this movement, located at the same level of biology where control and management is carried out by the exchange and motility.

Thus, control and management is exercised throughout the movement of data (in a Nikolas Rose interpretation), information (maybe XXXX) or bioactants in this case. For instance, a virus that is transported by a flock of sheep or bacteria that comes from a tropical country to Europe through an air travel. The result is typically shown in maps where fluxes are enacted with arrows or lines. Because of this, bodies are no longer the key concept of management: there is a shift where bodies become solely a further element, that is to say, one bioactant more in the set of bioactants put on stage. Now, we can say that one essential feature of bioactant is the need of movement.

In this realm of cinepolitics, bodies are transformed: we are in front of open bodies, bodies that lookout better than look in, and waiting for connections with other bioactants. The most important issue then, is not what is connected but how is the connection:

a    a) The connection folds space and time: bioactants perform as acceleration operators. 

    b)The body is no longer self-contained: body is one element that flows and is monitored due to its open nature. Body is constituted by a set of little bodies (human-virus-bacteria-animals) that is a potential risk from others bioactants (flocks, population… but also economy, public infrastructure…).

References:

Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be Defended. New York: Picador.

Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Tirado, Francisco. Baleriola, Enrique. Amaral Giordani, M. Do. A. Giordani, Tiago. Torrejón, Pedro. (2014). Subjetividad y subjetivadores en las tecnologías de bioseguridad en la Unión Europea. Polis e Psique, 3(4), 23-50.

Tirado, F. (2010). Cinepolítica y cinevalor: la gran transformación de la biopolítica. In Ignacio Mendiola (ed.) Rastros y rostros de la biopolítica. Barcelona: Anthropos.

PhotoCredit: Flickr, user Alexander Babashov

Methodology in social studies of biosecurity

For today’s post, I want to talk about one question shortly explained until now, and this is how our methodological approach to the issue of biosecurity is:

Generally, for the major of our papers we rely in two key concepts: study case and thick description, in this order.

Study case is a technic for recollect data that starts under de conception that around one research goal or question all kind of tool for the collection’ data is appropriate. Hence, we usually collect diverse documents about our particular issue (biosecurity, biosurveillance, ebola, epidemics in general…) like European regulations, state regulations, hospital and laboratory protocols, news of press. Nevertheless, study case does not use documents: it is also supported by interviews (transcribed), ethnographic notes, and other kind of material related with the concrete topic as can be images, videos or graphics.

Once we have this material, which frequently is facilitated by some informants or a key person, we proceed to analyse it among the entire group, first studying it deeply individually, reading and extracting notes, fragments and some related material. Then, discussing about it in group, extracting new ideas, concepts, and linking it with some theoretical concepts, older analysis, a relevant and current event perhaps, or classifying it in different ideas that we consider they have the potential to be developed.

I have to point out about the need of work with written material in any case (documents, transcriptions, ethnographical noted, etc.). Unlike some socioconstructionist of discursive traditions, all of these empiric materials is treated as a technology-as-mediator as I already wrote in this post. In this sense, we use within an exercise of mediation between other entities that endure in the space and time. Mediation, within the Actor-Network Theory, is a complex and multi-meaning concept that can be understood as translation, composition, reversibility of the blackboxing process and delegation (for more information about it, you can consult this paper, in Spanish).

The second key concept was thick description. Thick description is a concept quite used in anthropology and some critical social theories that is attributed to Geertz. We use it as a second step after we have done the study case. Thick description consists in a report or narration whereby we want to reach several levels of research, as description and explanation. One of the main features of this concept is his microscope level. This means that in order to study a global o general issue as power, change or conflict, we have to recontextualize them in the perception of details and emphasizing the little acts of the interaction: the best question are constituted from many and concrete little interactions. These little interactions are extracted from the analysis carried out in the study case.

In order to get more severity and strength to our research, thick description is frequently attached with a traditional explanation given by Latour and briefed in his concept of saturated description. For him, to saturate the description consists in folding the description: the more saturated is the description of the studied issue, the better will be the outcome of it. Latour uses the Latin etymology of the word explanation (the prefix ex- and the base plicare) that means literally unfold or deployment, a description ultimately.

The outcome of both of this concepts study case and thick description, is what we use for our work in papers, conferences and book chapters, and is a very useful way of group work. Currently, we are begin to use the multimodal analysis in order to analyse images and other kind of graphics.

References:

Geertz, C. (2003). La interpretación de las culturas. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Comunication. New York: Routledge.

Latour, B. (1998). De la mediación técnica: filosofía, sociología, genealogía. En Domènech, M. y Tirado, F. (eds.), Sociología Simétrica. Ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. London: SAGE, 1994.

PhotoCredit: Flickr, user Javier Vázquez

Upcoming paper II: Cosmopolitics and Biopolitics in the Biosecurity Regimes of the European Union

As I said in the last post, we have been reported that two of our papers will be published soon. I have already talked about the first one, and now, I am go to give some ideas about the second one: Cosmopolitics, Biopolitics and Biosecurity.

For this paper, we begin talking about a new shift in the early XXI century in the realm of security –as Foucault pointed out in Security, Territory and Population – to the biosecurity. I have wrote something about it here.

The main question in this paper is about Cosmopolitics, and for that, we have used the Stengers conception. Hence, cosmopolitics can be defined as politics referred to the production of a common cosmos, an arena of action that we share and that evolves us, affecting to all of us in our daily routines. I am aware the concept is quite more complex but it will be explain in the paper.

Thus, from this concept we want to argue that currently, life is problematized and has become a new veridiction object: cosmopolitics and biopolitics are the two sides of the same dispositif that grows and makes sense reconceptualising life in the way that was understood by Science in the XIX and XX centuries.

But, what about this new life? We have stablished five main axes:

-         - Life if movement

-          -Life is threat

-          -Life is economy

-          -Life is displayable

-          -Life is a multi-scale event

The way we have operate for this five axes is to create a thick description where we have illustrate all of them with European regulations and council directives, some  images and other kind of materials about the biosecurity topic.

Finally, we conclude with a compilation of cosmopolitics consequences that justifies our analysis, supported by some biopolitics ideas in order to refresh the foucauldian notion.


References:

Foucault, M. (2009). Security, Territory and Population. New York: Picador. 


Photo Credit: By myself supported by myFnetwork

Upcoming paper: subjectivity and subjectifiers in European Union technologies of biosecurity

We have been reported that in the coming days, two of our new papers will be published in both Brazilian and Chilean journals of Social Sciences. The first of them is titled Subjectivity and Subjetifiers in European Union Technologies of Bioecurity, and here I am go to make and advance for all of you.

To this paper, we worked with some Spanish online-press news that pointing forward virus, bacteria, outbreaks or pandemics. Our aim was to describe some ideas in an Actor-Network Theory sense, where we can understand this news as a mediator-technology in the Latour theory. Hence, using some extracts of this news, we can illustrate the idea of subjectifier and scenario.

We understand subjectifiers as an element that offers to subject the possibility of a connexion with a reflective effect. A subjectifier is a portion of knowledge, ideas, images; that allow the person define itself. For the idea of scenario, we defined it as an element defined by having an affect attached to it. In this sense, throughout the paper we expose some illustrative examples about these concepts with the press-news, following the case of study methodology’ tradition. A scenario is the outcome of the connection of several subjectifiers, offering an affection with which to assess and complete the reflective exercise offered by subjectifiers.

As conclusion, we point out that biosecurity is not only to protect the population against some diverse biohazards, but referring to discourses, practices, images, laws, protocols, etc.

Finally, in order to understand the relation between biosecurity and subjectivity is necessary to use the technology-as-mediator concept. This deal is not about a narrative creation and an internalization of it later; but a connections issue, linked to mobile elements.

References:

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s Hope, London: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social, New York: Oxford University Press.

Photo Credit: Flickr, user Procsilas Moscas (http://bit.ly/1uq4ICV)