skip to main content

Society for Social Studies of Science

The STS Profession



Calls for Papers


Fellowships & Postdocs

Submitting items to 4S and Technoscience Updates

Please email items for the 4S “Profession” pages and the Technoscience Updates newsletter to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Items may be edited for length. Please include a URL for the complete and authoritative information.

The monthly deadline for inclusion in the newsletter is the 7th.

Calls for Papers

Find here non-event related calls for papers, such as special issue journals.

Call for proposals Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (1976—)

Updated: February 08 2017

Background: the journal

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (ISR) is a quarterly journal that aims to set contemporary and historical developments in the natural and social sciences, engineering and technology into their social and cultural contexts and to illumine their interrelations with the humanities and arts. Much more is said about ISR's intellectual project in an editorial that appeared in the journal at the beginning of last year. I attach it, below.

Most of ISR's issues are devoted to specific though wide-ranging themes; approximately one issue per year is for unsolicited essays. Examples of the thematic issues from the recent past are the Two Cultures Debate (41.2-3), Software and Scholarship (40.4), Theatre and Science (39.3), Master and Servant in Technoscience (37.4) and Computational Picturing (37.1). In 2010 ISR devoted a double-issue to the work of the historian of ancient science G.E.R Lloyd (35.3-4, freely downloadable). It included an essay by Lloyd, "History and human nature", to which 15 colleagues responded. For 2018 a similar double-issue on the work of anthropologist Tim Ingold is currently underway.

The thematic issues are guest-edited; some of them take on a life of their own and become reference points in the fields they address.

The call: Interdisciplinary Engineering

On behalf of ISR allow me to issue this call for proposals, in the first instance on the topic of engineering with the emphasis on knowing through making and on world-building. Computationally orientated contributions would be welcome, but the aim should be to include a wide range of philosophical, historical, biological and anthropological disciplines. Hands-on, embodied, motile, experimental and exploratory perspectives would be most welcome.

Whatever our academic paymasters may say, editing such an issue offers a significant opportunity -- as well as a not insignificant amount of work. Experience suggests, however, that such burdens are light.

ISR is completely booked until late 2019, so there is time to find contributors, negotiate with them and manage their submissions. If you are interested please write to me. A proposal should be no more than 2 pages in length. Kindly include a c.v. or URL. I will answer preliminary enquiries promptly.

Call for Reviewers

Updated: February 08 2017

Do you enjoy reading books in economics, social science, humanities? Join our community of book reviewers!

To join you must be an expert in one of the areas we publish ( ) and be prepared to review at least one book every two years: Vernon Press - Independent publisher of academic books in ... Publisher of peer reviewed and critically-acclaimed books in the social sciences and the humanities.

Benefits of joining

* Get to read and keep carefully pre-selected works, including cutting-edge research. * Help fellow scholars develop their work into high-standard, high-impact contributions and be acknowledged for it. * Get advance notice of exciting publication opportunities, occasional competitions and prize draws. * First-time reviewers receive a small honorarium ($50) and deep discount on other titles. * Experienced scholars may propose new series and receive additional benefits for their role as Editors (subject to publisher approval). * Young scholars receive support from the publisher and fellow community members and gain valuable experience in the process of peer review. To join please send a brief message expressing interest to: In your message please mention your full name, academic affiliation, area(s) of expertise, and provide either a paragraph-long biographical note (and/)or a list of publications.

More detailed information on this call at the link.

CfP for Science as Culture (SaC) Forum: Economic Assumptions

Deadline: January 31 2017

Updated: October 07 2016

Forum Editor: Kean Birch

Economic assumptions underpin an enormous range of expert judgements regarding technoscience and beyond. Such assumptions frequently remain implicit, meaning that they are unaccountable despite being powerful influences on an array of decisions, policies, media representations, public engagements, professional expertise, etc. Examples of these assumptions include the following: how livelihoods relate to rising GDP; how human behaviour relates to competitive individualism; how government policies relate to notions of efficiency and cost-benefit analysis; how innovation relates to capital-intensive technology; how technology relates to social progress and societal benefits; how technoscientific development relates to financial returns; how successful product development relates to price, quality, public acceptance; etc. (Muniesa 2014; Birch 2016; Roy and King 2016). For all such issues, the underlying assumptions are normative and constitutive, even if claiming to be merely descriptive.

Some time ago scholars like Michel Callon (1998) and Donald MacKenzie (2001) turned an STS lens onto forms of economic expertise and knowledge; they highlighted how the economy is performatively constituted by economic ideas. Philip Mirowski (2011) and David Tyfield (2012) have sought to examine the changing political economy of research and innovation that has resulted from particular political-economic regimes, especially neoliberalism. Sunder Rajan (2012) and Collard and Dempsey (2013), have sought to understand the materialities of economic actors, objects, and understandings of the world. These perspectives represent only some ways that the constitutive relationship between economic assumptions and technoscience have been theorised in STS, e.g. as academic capitalism, neoliberal technoscience, or technoscientific capitalism (e.g. Berman 2012; Pellizzoni and Ylönen, 2012; Birch 2013).

These various perspectives highlight how economic assumptions increasingly (re)configure technoscientific priorities, funding regimes, organizational governance, politics and policies, artefacts and bodies, etc. In particular finance, financial markets, financial governance, and financialization are bound up with specific configurations of technoscientific research and innovation process, strategy, outcomes, and normative framings of the world. There is a growing need for STS to engage more with economic assumptions and their pervasive manifestations. If we do not develop our own critical competency, then by default we end up reproducing implicit or dominant economic assumptions.

Given that technoscience and economics are increasingly entangled as ontological and epistemic objects, as knowledges, and as practices, more work is necessary to unpack the economic assumptions underpinning technoscience. This raises two important questions for STS: How might STS scholars theorise the economic assumptions implicit in technoscience? And in its academic analysis? In what ways are the logics, subjectivities, and publics constituting economic assumptions and technoscience increasingly blurred?

This forum seeks to engage STS scholars in an analysis of economic assumptions, especially their roles in science, technology, innovation, and expertise more generally. For this SaC Forum, articles should address the above questions, which can be elaborated through these topics:

· How economic assumptions underpin particular expert and policy judgements

· How economic assumptions are kept implicit, made explicit or actively contested

· How economic assumptions configure and reconfigure technoscience, and vice versa

· Normative stances implied (or made explicit) in economic assumptions, especially as regards technoscience

· Co-production of specific economic assumptions and specific technoscience

· How STS can engage with economic claims, expertise, and assumptions

· The political and normative role of STS in challenging different forms of economic expertise and assumptions

· Theoretical value of concepts like technoscientific capitalism or neoliberal technoscience

· Constitution of concepts like technoscientific capitalism by specific logics, expertise, subjectivities, and publics

As an example, please see Kean’s recent article “Rethinking value in the bio-economy: Finance, assetization, and the management of value” in Science, Technology, and Human Values.

· Deadline: end of January 2017.

· Length: length is flexible, ranging between 2k-6k words.

· Format: author’s contact details (postal address and email address) should be at the top of the file; articles should contain an introduction and conclusion, but are otherwise flexible.

· Contact: please email Kean Birch ( with queries about suitability and such like.

· Submission: send submissions to both Les Levidow ( and Kean Birch (; articles will be reviewed by both Les and Kean, but will not be sent out for peer review.

Full-scale papers (10k words maximum) are also welcome. But these would need to follow the SaC editorial guidelines and undergo the normal referee procedure. If not ready in time for the Forum, they could be published in a later issue. See here, especially the guidelines for authors.


Berman, E.P. (2012) Creating the Market University, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press

Birch, K. (2013) The political economy of technoscience: An emerging research agenda, Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 7(1): 49-61.

Birch, K. (2016) Rethinking value in the bio-economy: Finance, assetization and the management of value, Science, Technology and Human Values.

Callon, M. (ed.) (1998) The Laws of the Markets, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Collard, R-C. and Dempsey, J. (2013) Life for sale? The politics of lively commodities, Environment and Planning A 45 (11): 2682-2699.

MacKenzie, D. (2001) Physics and Finance: S-Terms and modern finance as a topic for science studies, Science, Technology, & Human Values 26: 115-144.

Mirowski, P. (2011) ScienceMart, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Muniesa, F. (2014) The Provoked Economy, London: Routledge.

Pellizzoni, L. and Ylönen, M., eds (2012) Neoliberalism and Technoscience: Critical Assessments, Ashgate.

Roy, V. and King, L. (2016) Betting on hepatitis C: how financial speculation in drug development influences access to medicines, BMJ; i3718 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i3718

Sunder Rajan, K. (ed.) (2012) Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics and Governance in Global Markets, Duke University Press.

Tyfield, D. (2012) The Economics of Science, London: Routledge.

Special Issue of Qualitative Inquiry

Deadline: December 01 2016

Updated: October 07 2016


Guest Editors: Katherine Harrison (University of Copenhagen, Denmark & Lund University, Sweden) & Maria Bee Christensen-Strynø (Roskilde University, Denmark)

Deadline for submission: 1 December 2016
New media are increasingly intersecting and intertwined with our daily lives, bodily and intimate practices, and relationships. This special issue will present contributions from researchers who are investigating practices of intimacy mediated either wholly or in part through new media. In particular, it will focus on the methodological issues involved in conducting qualitative research in this flourishing field.

A number of volumes published in the last decade have variously covered affect and methodology (e.g. Fraser and Puwar 2008; Pink 2009; Richardson 2005; Stage and Timm 2015), affect and new media (e.g. Chambers 2013; Garde-Hansen and Gorton 2013; Hillis at al 2015; Karatzogianni and Kuntsman 2012; McGlotten 2013; Paasonen 2011; Payne 2014; van Dijck 2013), or online methodologies (e.g. Hine 2000; Kozinets 2012; Markham and Baym 2009). This special issue builds on this existing body of scholarship and develops it further by narrowing the focus to methodological issues of research conducted on/with/through new media and specifically concerned with practices of intimacy. This special issue will zoom in on questions of method and methodology as they are experienced by researchers working at the cutting-edge of scholarship on intimacies and new media. It will share knowledge and experiences from the field, as well as proposing innovative methodological solutions and ideas on how to enter, survive and exit these highly charged fieldsites. Both personal experiences and reflections on current policies, procedures and paradigms will be welcomed.

Researching intimacies encompasses a wide variety of practices and relationships, including but not limited to kinship, sexual encounters, body and gender, dis/abilities, migration, friendship, birth and death, romantic relationships, non-monogamies, dating or community formation. Each of these finds different forms in its mediatization. Simultaneously “new media” comprises a variety of digital platforms that offer distinctive ways to share, connect and communicate; differences in hardware and software intersect with situated sociocultural norms about technology use. The combination of intimate practices and new media thus poses challenges to existing methodological paradigms due to the limitations/affordances of the medium intersecting with continuously shifting practices of intimacy. This special issue will present a range of intimate practices as well as a selection of digital sites and apps. In so doing, a variety of different methodological issues will be highlighted and discussed.

Suggestions for topics that contributors may wish to engage with include, but are not limited to:

- Logistical and technical difficulties in collecting ephemeral or unstable personal data

- Intimacy and loneliness of the researcher

- Commercialization of online intimacies

- The blurring of personal/professional lines of conduct as a researcher

- The borderline between “lurking”, voyeurism and participation

- Public intimacies in private spaces – accessing and exiting personal spaces as fieldsites

- Technical glitches in online intimacies

- The illusion of online anonymity or distance

- Negotiating national differences in ethical guidelines for online collection of ”intimate” data

- Tracking intimacies over time, space and media

- Capturing and processing vast amounts of intimate data

- Finding participants when the topic provokes shame, anger, or embarrassment

- How multiple understandings of “intimacy” affect methodology

- Sudden changes to fieldsites in response to public outcry/moral outrage

- Adapting old methods to new and slippery fieldsites

- Legal frameworks as intimate practices move between screen and materiality

- Inclusion/exclusion mechanisms and accessibility
We welcome papers from a wide range of disciplines. The editors welcome expressions of interest and are happy to discuss proposals for contributions.

Please send your abstract to: AND . Abstracts should be maximum 500 words long and written in English. Please include your name, title, and affiliation. Deadline for submission of abstracts: 1 December 2016

If accepted, final versions of papers should follow the Qualitative Inquiry submission guidelines which can be viewed here:

Please note that the Editors of the journal reserve the right to reject special issues and/or individual articles at any point in the review process.

Special Issue of Design Issues: Organizing provocation, conflict and appropriation

Deadline: January 10 2017

Updated: August 13 2016

Contribute to a Special Issue of Design Issues: Organizing provocation, conflict and appropriation: The role of the designer in making publics

Because of the importance of the role and embodiment of the designer/artist in making publics, this special issue draws attention to reflexive practices in Art & Design, and questions how these practices can be embedded in the formations and operations of publics and design practices. More specifically, the special issue aims to explore the following questions: How do the designer/artist create and maintain publics? How do we accommodate differences in these agonistic spaces? What is the role of the designer/artist in these contexts? How can we understand the tension between artistic control in speculative design and empowerment in participatory design?

This issue will contain the best papers received and presented in the corresponding workshop in the Participatory Design Conference in Aarhus in August 2016 (PDC2016) entitled “Ting: Making publics through provocation, conflict and appropriation”, as well as other invited contributions. We invite researchers, designers, activists, artists, who in their work are exploring utopian, speculative, and critical design projects as well as designing for and with social movements, alternative societies and relational economies, to contribute to the theme of ‘Organizing provocation, conflict and appropriation: The role of the designer in making publics’. Authors are invited to consider (but are not limited to) the following issues and questions for this special issue: Design as world making and as a way to create a public space Agonistic public spaces versus consensual decision-making; The role of the author/designer/creator/artist in speculative and critical design in relation to participatory design; Politics of Participation Exclusion and inclusion in the design practice; Norms in speculative participatory design practices The tension between artistic control in speculative design and empowerment in participatory design The tension between empowerment and exploitation, between participation and precarious labor

GUEST EDITORS Shaowen Bardzell, Indiana University Tessy Cerratto Pargman, Stockholm University Carl DiSalvo, Georgia Institute of Technology Laura Forlano, Illinois Institute of Technology Karin Hansson, Stockholm University (Managing Guest Editor, )

Jaz Hee-jeong Choi, Queensland University of Technology Somya Joshi, Stockholm University Silvia Lindtner, School of Information, University of Michigan

TIMELINE 01.9.2016: Submission deadline for intentions to contribute (1500-2000 words) 01.10.2016: Notification of relevance sent to authors / selected contributions invited to continue 01.12.2016: Full papers submission deadline for those selected to continue (5000 + references) 01.02.2017: Notification of accept / reject / revisions to authors 01.06.2017: Final manuscript submission deadline 15.09.2017: Final selected manuscripts to production