Introduced into agriculture in the late s, antimicrobials have become an integral component of many different aspects of contemporary life, whether that be agricultural production and food supply or human, animal and environmental health. The global problem of antimicrobial resistance, which is increasingly defining antimicrobial use today, is not new. The last few decades have seen a series of attempts to frame and to regulate antimicrobial use and the drug market in veterinary medicine and animal care across different countries with significant varied economic, scientific and political contexts.
Hence while their use as animal growth promoters has been banned in Europe since , antimicrobials are still widely employed for this purpose in the rest of the world. This panel seeks to look specifically at antimicrobial uses in animal husbandry from the prescription and use of antimicrobials on farms to the production, marketing and sale of antimicrobial medicine and the different forms of regulation professional, institutional or market-oriented that are applied to antimicrobial use. The panel aims to bring new understanding to the social, technical and economic structures of agri-food production and distribution systems that integrate, and have integrated, antimicrobials as key elements in the processes of livestock farming or, on occasion, have sought to encourage their reduction.
The panel will take an STS approach to raise questions about innovation and transition, resilience and resistance, science and regulation, practice and prescription, that offer new perspectives on the hitherto dominant trajectories of livestock farming. We invite contributions on a range of topics including but not exclusively :.
Cities are increasingly postulated as the scene of the bright future: they are smart, fancy and dynamic. Assembling people, technologies and green buildings together, they inhabit the synergy to create a new world Sennett Is the countryside declining? How to understand these spatial-temporal orders of the countryside and the caring it involves, both for the region and its citizens? What does a caring geography entail? In this panel, we seek to explore and conceptualize the countryside as an assemblage, with a particular emphasis to its caring geography.
How do carescapes in the countryside change, given demographic and economic developments? How to conceptualize these emerging regional assemblages and their consequences?
In recent years, attention has become a topic of increasing public concern. Digital distractions, addictive design patterns, and ad-driven platforms are said to be decreasing individual attention spans; political crises are described as canny distractions or failures of collective attention. Meanwhile, academic critics call for new forms of attention as solutions to analytic and political problems. What work does the concept of attention perform in popular and expert conversations? How might closer attention to attention interrupt common sense discourses about its value and purpose?
What work can attention perform, when it is attended to with greater precision and care? This panel invites contributions that are topically, theoretically, and methodologically related to the intersections of attention and STS—including but not limited to research that addresses the following:. Whether this new machine age will lead to displacement of human labour or will create new economic opportunities is a matter of a different debate. However, with increasing delegation of human activities to intelligent agents, what we definitely witness is a shift in human skill trajectory Bright Michael Polanyi in his book, The Tacit Dimension , argued that much of human knowledge and capability stems from skills and rulesets that lies underneath our conscious understanding.
It manifests rather as a more complex intertwining between human activities, technology, and organization structure. The objective of the panel is to bring together an analysis of these nuanced process through which human skills are evolving and will evolve, given increasing reliance on AI-based automation and how this will impact human identity, which in the modern capitalist system, relies on our occupation.
This session explores imaginaries, politics, users and consequences of the emerging technologies of autonomous vehicles and the digitalization of transportation infrastructure. It problematizes these technologies across temporal, scalar, systemic and disciplinary boundaries. The goal is to stimulate a rich debate on the co-production of autonomous vehicles and society, and to shed light on how the complexity, hybridity, and diversity of these emerging technologies could be understood, interpreted and governed.
According to popular narratives, self-driving vehicles promise wide-ranging socio-technical transformations with potential implications for mobility, safety, environment, infrastructure, urban development and planning. STS scholars have highlighted the ambivalent and contested characteristics of autonomous vehicles and digital infrastructures.
While techno-epistemic actors who push the self-driving agenda produce rich imaginaries highlighting massive potential gains within traffic safety, goods transport, energy efficiency and climate mitigation, others question the politics of self-driving vehicles by asking how they feed into wider algorithmic cultures of governance and deep digitalization. This also raises important questions of cyber security and surveillance and the exploitation of big data by actors such as nation states, corporations, political parties and interest groups.
Further on, what are the implications for labor markets, governance and planning? Are current technological scripts socially just? From the perspective of technology users, this raises questions of the changing roles and practices of drivers, ownership of transport data, app-economies, new services, mobility cultures and democracy. In conversation with ongoing queer, disability studies, feminist, and antiracist projects in STS, this open panel seeks to further disrupt interrogations of sexuality, race, gender, and dis ability in the study of science, technology, and medicine by centering deviant objects of analysis and subject-positions: Bad Queers, Bold Crips, and Black Femmes.
By the fact of their existence — but also through their intentional deviant practices — Queers, Crips, and Black Femmes disrupt idealized white, able-bodied, masculine, heteronormative, and feminine subject-positions as these are depicted in both popular and medical material.
Rather than an STS that merely accounts for this deviance, we seek to build up an STS that actively celebrates these deviant subjects and their practices of self-making, community-building, and collective resistance to normative regimes of science, technology, and biomedicine. We welcome submission from all disciplines, historical time periods, and encourage methodological promiscuity. STS has a long history of disrupting understandings of bodies, modes of knowledge, and entire disciplines. Operating in that tradition, this panel seeks to put those disruptions into conversation with deviant forms of inquiry and theorizing in queer studies, disability studies, sexuality studies, and Black feminist studies.
How do Queers disrupt the technological and biomedical constructions around sex, sexuality, pain, pleasure, disease, and desire? What happens when Crips embrace biomedical technologies that seek to erase disabled subjects and instead use them to create an imagined Crip future? How do STS scholars and biomedical actors respond when working class Black women who are framed as ill or sick — such as women living with HIV — respond with bold assertions of their health?
Inspired by the deviant milieus of New Orleans, Bourbon Street, and with 4S convening in the shadow of Southern Decadence , we welcome scholars from a wide variety of fields that seek to re define, appropriate, and revel in deviance through one or more critical STS lenses. We welcome traditional paper submissions and contributions in other formats or modalities. Scholarship in postcolonial STS and critical data studies critiques the widespread use of data-driven systems, pointing to the racialized, gendered, and socioeconomic consequences embedded in their production and use, and the troubled histories from which such apparatuses arise Borocas and Selbst ; Browne ; Crawford and boyd ; Noble ; Suchman This research has productively demonstrated that data technologies are not neutral, but instead are socially, culturally, and politically situated ways of knowing and seeing Browne ; Gitelman ; Jasanoff ; Thakor And, how these systems work outside of the West is largely unattended to.
How do they derive value in data and data-driven techniques? Through empirical analysis, this panel digs beneath macro trends and rhetoric to query the lived experiences of working through these burgeoning data systems. This panel explores the influential landscape of practices of personal change and radical self-transformation. Practices and techniques for self-improvement are part of encounters and ways of operating in healthcare, education, professional development, life coaching, therapy, spiritual practice, movements like the quantified self, etc.
We wish to move away from such an analytical cul-de-sac and craft stories that do not hinge on unilateral critique or explanatory frameworks. This panel calls for scholarship on non-use and media refusal to examine how ubiquitous technology becomes infastrucutral, and the increasing difficulty of avoiding adoption. Yet interruptions in patterns of use and changes in user behaviors emerge, as we negotiate our relationships with media and technology in context-specific studies. How do we consider what it is to be a non-user when innovation is rapidly the conditions of possibility for living in a technified society?
This panel hopes to address that question. Scholarship on non-use is welcome to examine the issues surrounding innovation, interruptions, dis engagement and dis empowerment. When we are compelled to participate in media and technology via innovation, how do we measure the exchange of agency, as ways of being in society become technified, commercialized and standardized on new platforms? What is the interuption to older ways of being and historic social infastructure? What is the relationship between dis engagements and dis empowerment? Case studies, theoretical works, and new perspectives are especially welcome as we try and continue the necessary conversation around non-use.
Technology in disability studies is often seen as the trojan horse of ableism. In STS, for all the considerations of the posthuman, critical conceptualizations of disability remain rare. The research, then, emerging from these fields has largely run in parallel, with few or fleeting intersections. If the conceptual and political points of reference in these fields are characterized largely by disjunctions, the same cannot be said for their subjects of interest. From studies of biomedical technologies such as pharmaceutical and bionic devices to studies of the senses and ways of being in the world, the subjects and objects of concern in critical disability studies and STS overlap significantly.
This panel will bring together a set of researchers working at the emerging intersection of these fields to converse within and across the existing tensions. Moving beyond the limits of concepts such as therapeutic normalisation and technological enhancement, we will dwell on the way technologies are productive of, and mediate, difference. We will consider how the everyday use of biomedical technologies can sometimes work against normative logics of cure that govern their production allowing people instead to reshape, rather than remove, difference and disability.
What might a uniquely Black feminist approach to the study of health, science, and technology offer to the field of STS as a whole?
As an emergent lens and field, BFHSS is built on existing and growing research that demands a multi-pronged approach to ameliorating the health disparities of Black people. This panel will bring together scholars invested in the project of imagining a future for STS which takes seriously the contributions of Black feminist engagements with science, technology, health, and medicine. We invite ethnographic work, textual engagements, artistic performance, and any synthesis of these and other modalities to ask what might be possible.
What kinds of interruptions, interruptions, and regenerations might a black feminist framework afford the study and experience of health across time and space? Science studies scholars have long tracked the variety of political and epistemic projects either conducted by or enrolling lay people to enact science.
Whether it is scientists crowdsourcing data or activists questioning corporate or state research agendas, experimental methods, or the ends of research, citizen science encompasses the participatory production of scientific knowledge within and without institutionalized boundaries. As such, tracking the openings and foreclosures of citizen science has brought attention to the instrumental rationality and cultural authority of science underpinning both policy justification and public accountability, particularly in liberal democratic contexts.
In this panel, we seek to expand this conversation by examining the political possibilities of technoscientific engagement that is enabled through bureaucratic interventions rather than the lingua franca of science in multiple political contexts across the world. How might we examine social movements that must demonstrate bureaucratic literacy in order to challenge the boundaries and ends of technological and biomedical projects? Even in the United States, activists must develop bureaucratic literacy to negotiate the procedural hurdles of ethics committees and regulatory agencies to challenge therapeutic applications for marijuana and psychedelics.
In many countries, citizen science has gained public policy support in recent years, often touted for expanding scientific literacy, producing useful scientific data, and spurring innovation. At the same time, a growing number of scholars are highlighting how citizen science can contribute to progressive social change, bringing attention to social movement activists, union organizers, and scientists who are using citizen science to argue for better protection of the environment and human health. Papers in this session will probe questions such as: How is citizen science and public policy co-produced?
How are neoliberal policies implicated in the advancement of citizen science? What are the implications when citizen scientists choose to align or not their data and methods with existing regulatory standards? How is the field of citizen science governed? How do citizen science practices encourage or inhibit politicized actions by volunteers? In alignment with the conference theme of innovation, this session also explores how citizen science helps innovation in regulatory science, advocacy strategies, legal arguments, and government policies. Classics might be papers recognized as such.
Or, they might be papers that are not part of standard narratives of the field but should be incorporated or re-incorporated into these narratives—recognizing that while narratives can celebrate the collective and cumulative nature of scholarship, they can also marginalize or exclude. In remembering earlier moments in STS, we ask presenters to explore how those moments can be usefully or interestingly recalled today.
We hope that presenters will not only engage with their chosen paper, but will also devote some of their time to freshly delivering parts of it. Such re-enactments might commemorate the contributions of particular scholars, or be performances intended to trouble existing categories or narratives in STS. By engaging with past scholarship through re-enactment rather than citation alone, we aim to foreground the performative aspects of citational practices, making clear how the meaning of a classic paper shifts as it is read aloud by a different speaker, in a different venue, in a different historical moment.
We invite papers that address the following questions, among others:. The privatization of public knowledge has become endemic to 21st century times. From corporate battles over drug patents to seed wars, knowledge produced in many forms, sites, spaces, and communities is increasingly enclosed — that is, separated from its knowledge-makers and commodified for the accumulation of capital.
Science and technology are at once driving and experiencing the effects of many contemporary enclosures. We welcome papers that explore the multiple dimensions of both knowledge commons and how knowledge is being used to create or support all varieties of commons. Some potential topics include: What are the potential contributions of commons to helping regenerate and democratize the everyday practice of science and technology?
How does knowledge-making enable and sustain the formation of commons, and whose knowledge matters? What sorts of knowledge are produced within commons, and how might these play a role in the identity and governance of commons? How might new technologies update and reinvigorate commons practices?
How might it disrupt them? The importance of social innovation has increased because it represents an alternative to the conventional top-down assistance approach of some governments to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. Unlike such an approach, social innovation implies the active participation of society in the solution of its own problems.
That is to say, we understand social innovation as the intentional change of social practices aimed at the solution of collective problems, through the active participation of a community. In other words, social innovation means social change, especially that intentional change of social practices. Despite its known relevance and conceptualization, several authors point out that social innovation still lacks a coherent theoretical structure and that more empirical research is necessary to understand and promote it.
In response to this concern, through this panel we invite STS scholars to join a conceptual discussion on social innovation, helping to define its actors, conditions, potentials and possibilities. Likewise, an additional purpose of the panel is to present results of empirical investigations that show evidence of social innovation processes of particular cases. If the progress of nations requires not only technological innovation, but also social innovation, those who study innovation within the field of STS are the ones indicated to provide a better conceptualization on innovation, involving both concepts in processes that affect the welfare and sustainability of our societies.
Meanwhile, given the urgency of climate change, many other practitioners argue that closed systems present an inevitable path for future food production. This panel invites papers that explore the complex human-plant-technology-economy relations that are emerging across a variety of settings.
We seek contributions that critically interrogate how plant science and innovation in growth systems work together, and how they in turn co-constitute new plant epistemologies, moral economies, forms of care, and broader human-plant relations, among other possible topics.
The influence of corporate interests — most notably from the cigarette, chemical, pharmaceutical, and food industries — on science and on health and environmental regulation has attracted a growing media and public attention. STS research has explored this issue in different ways, for example through the analysis of the impact of industry-funding on scientific publications, the study of corporate-biases in the production regulatory standards, or more broadly by questioning the commercialization of science.
This panel wants to bring together researchers taking on board the question of corporate influence on science and public regulation, and proposes to do so by following three lines of research: 1 first, by opening up a discussion on the notions and theoretical frameworks used to analyze industry or business influence including, but not limited to: regulatory capture, conflict of interest, bias, production of ignorance, hegemony ; 2 second, by studying the social mechanisms it involves for instance, funding strategies, revolving-door dynamics, ghostwriting, lobbying, or threats and retaliations ; 3 third, by analyzing production of policies aiming at controlling corporate influence, and the social mobilizations it triggers.
More generally, the panel aims at helping the development of inter-sectoral and international comparison, and consequently welcomes papers that analyze the aforementioned corporate strategies in various industrial sectors and in various geographical areas of the global North and South. Resistance to dominant modes of thinking, knowing, and doing can take a variety of forms— and often results in the production of new epistemological communities of practice. The counter-hegemonic epistemologies of conspiracy theorists, self-experimenters, citizen scientists, marginalized and oppressed communities, and members of many other knowledge domains frequently embody narratives and ways of knowing that run against the dominant paradigms of their social and historical contexts.
In many cases, critical or disruptive epistemologies are met by those in power with skepticism and even fear. This open panel calls for case studies addressing counter-hegemonic epistemologies in the fields of history of science and technology, as well as STS, information studies, education, media studies, and other relevant disciplines. We are particularly interested in research that brings a comparative historical perspective to bear on the continuously contested nature of dominant knowledge systems. Some points to consider could be: how have specific counter-narratives affected the dominant discourses in the fields that they challenge?
Alternatively, how do dominant discourses overpower counter-hegemonic epistemologies? What kinds of contexts does this happen in, and what are the social, political, and historical implications of such contestation? We welcome submissions that address communities including but not limited to alternative education, decolonial science and technology, clandestine chemistry, whistleblowing, harm reduction, and radical politics. By bringing such disparate ways of knowing into contact, our panel aims to build towards a robust account of the innovation and contestation that prevail among counter-hegemonic epistemological communities.
Feminist STS scholars have stressed the importance of including engagements with creative life including literary and visual media as entry points into analysis of technosocial infrastructures, processes, and relations. Concepts like cyborgs and monsters also emphasize the boundary-crossing, embodied, and material aspects of knowledge creation by which subjecthood and world come into being together. We invite papers that explore the generative frictions and interruptions to relations of power that engaging with non-normative bodyminds and experiences entail. We are particularly interested in how disabled identities are shaped by, and in turn influence creative practices, from online fan-fiction communities to graphic medicine.
From web accessibility protocols to novel technologies, how are structures and processes created that make innovative representations possible? How might analysis of creative practices highlight the relational aspects of materiality as identity- and knowledge-building? Cryopreservation has given way to a new scientific ice age: The ability to freeze and bank biological material is today a pivotal technological practice in animal breeding, conservation biology, and human reproduction.
This panel invites transdisciplinary, empirical as well as theoretical papers related to the ways that cryobanking is imagined and animated in scientific, commercial, popular culture, and user accounts. This includes, but is not limited to: 1. How the cryobanking of human and animal reproductive bits becomes imagined as a type of cryo-insurance, 2. How the cryobanking of human and animal wholes becomes imagined and animated as a type of cryo-optimism, 3. How the cryobanking of multiple species and seeds engage a type of cryopolitics, and 4. The cryo-aesthetics of cryobanking.
Dancing is a ubiquitous form and a powerful expression for thinking about bodies, energy, ecology and temporalities. At the same time dance is performed at different scales and intensities while also affected by experiences, improvisations and evocations. Dancing, as performative mode, draws our attention to two issues of ongoing importance to STS: 1 movements, fluidities and meanings and 2 relationality and materiality. Dance may thus be simultaneously literal and metaphorical, structured and spontaneous, producing situations that may lure knowing but render it beyond words.
Here, dancing becomes an interesting focal point for exploring the Anthropocene. This panel considers dancing as both a lens and a site for understanding social life and naturecultures. We ask: how can STS scholars explore dancing as epistemic practice in the Anthropocene, both in its own terms and in conversation with more conventional academic ways of knowing? STS scholars have long been interested in the assorted and diverse devices that equip markets, from market infrastructures to mundane marketing tools like shopping carts, knowledge devices, and measuring instruments.
As markets are digitized, data are a key element in the operation of markets in a variety of forms: consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, customization engines, algorithmic pricing, vending and trading machines. Hence, data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, through the construction of data as a device, a valuation tool, an infrastructure, or an asset.
This panel aims to explore these various facets of data, and how these help to achieve markets. What lies behind these data doubles, and what are their lived and experiential effects on consumers? Secondly, with big data technologies, marketing knowledge is increasingly produced from the analysis of large databases that combine a diverse array of information on consumers, products, firms, and market operations. These data are then stabilized through metrics, dashboards and standards. How do these new knowledge devices reconfigure practices?
Third, data fuels market automation mechanisms, such as algorithmic pricing, recommendation engines, programmatic advertising, high-frequency trading. How do algorithmic markets and digital platforms take place in practice, and how do they reconfigure market agencements? The global trajectory of scientific innovations seems to be both interrupted and regenerated by the rise of the Rest. A heightened and widened awareness to decolonise science among both the Global South and the Global North has led to genuine attempts at reshaping the production and delivery of knowledge.
Yet such efforts and their impacts cannot be taken for granted. What are the incentives and hindrances to decolonizing science in practice? How does this inform us about the organisation and governance of science for the public good? This session invites discussions on these questions from both the successful and less successful attempts to decolonise science in different regions.
These are sites where theory, code, and data, either generate price signals or produce matchings, in order to optimize some measured function. Examples are:. Taken as a whole, these mechanisms raise some crucial questions for the role of knowledge and technology in constituting social reality:. We expect and welcome submissions on a range of empirical topics, employing a range of methods, with the common goal of deriving analyses and insights that bridge these areas and contribute to a general understanding.
Advances in life-sustaining and monitoring technologies unavoidably problematize our understandings of dying, death and the range of conscious states in between which, increasingly, are defined through the use of technologically mediated assessments e. The resultant ethical, economic, and cultural difficulties which attend the promise and perils of technologically mediated death and dying disrupt our notions of personhood, identity, and social obligation even as they tend to increase the length—though less often the quality—of life.
This panel invites papers which use critical, ethnographically informed STS theory and methods to interrogate and explore the technologies, networks, and interstitial spaces in and by which states of consciousness are assessed, the stages of dying are determined, and death pronounced. This panel also invites papers which interrogate the cascade of technologically mediated procedures which often follow, e. Papers which examine institutional settings, practices, and rationale as they relate to specific technological devices e.
This panel particularly welcomes papers that explore these topics across a range of cultural and socioeconomic domains and reflect on the ways in which critical perspectives rooted in STS may reflexively inform and configure technologically mediated assessments of dying, death and the states between. Proponents of digital agriculture argue that innovations in sensing, big data and automation will transform how we think about and organize food systems.
Digital technologies may optimize different components of production and distribution, with implications for productivity, profitability, social security and environmental protection. But as the land encounters the digital and the digital the land, it is important to consider how innovations are both shaping and being shaped by social and political processes and institutions.
This panel is animated by the normative belief that STS attention to the interplay between technology and the social could advance a generative and timely analysis of digital agriculture. We invite papers exploring the ways by which digital innovations are mobilized in food production and wider societal re-ordering.
Panelists could consider how STS concepts such as co-production, assemblages, socio-technical systems or ontological politics could help in this work? What social values are entangled with everyday technical practices to collect, order and re present agricultural data? How are farmers, agrochemical corporations, extension workers, governments and other social groups engaging with digital agricultural technologies? Work is increasingly shaped by algorithms and automated technologies that standardize and organize the labor process, incorporate managerial tasks, and contribute to new forms of value generation.
While this is depicted as a smooth process of innovation, the field is ripe with frictions and tensions. The field of STS offers crucial concepts and tools to challenge the assumption of technology as an external force that single-handedly configures and controls the workforce. STS shed lights on how both the materiality and ideology of innovation are contested and practiced by specific actors. Perspectives rooted on user theory, political economy of technology, feminist theory of technology, and labour process theory are welcome among others.
We also aim to solicit papers that document and study how workers alter, redefine, and regenerate meanings, opportunities, risks, and rewards other than those imposed by system algorithms and other technologies. For decades the European Union has policies in place and funding offered to foster gender equality in academia and research. But these policy-driven and requested change processes face inner-institutional as well as societal resistance e. Holistic systemic approaches are necessary to disrupt and interrupt traditional organizational structures towards social gender just work environments.
The stronger institutionalisation of gender studies for instance in US American universities supported structural changes within the organisations, and makes gender equality efforts on the other hand more difficult in the majority of European institutions where gender studies are not structurally present and thus not acknowledged as research field.
In this open panel we want to stimulate cross-cultural knowledge exchange and try to foster the dialogue on intersectional perspectives on structural change in science and research organisations. We welcome theoretical and empirical papers, which contribute towards a better understanding on how structural and institutional conditions of precarious employment affect personal careers in multiple ways. We would like to stimulate a discussion of papers, who dare to develop the vision of a fair, inclusive and just academic environment — how can disruptions from the inside work towards a system change in research and higher education?
Labor is at the center of innovation, whether it is in services or manufacture, media, or any other activity. Popular media and, recently, academic discourse, have been brimming with account on how new technological advances in artificial intelligence AI , robots, platforms, and algorithms will transform the landscape of work, with ramifications for occupations and employment on a potentially grand scale. Science Technology and Society studies offer a good toolset to study such sort of disturbances, recreation, and renovation in labor and organizations.
For instance, contributions can raise the question about what sort of materialities emerge in new labor ecologies or how modes of production are changing through a human-automation symbiosis in the work system. Furthermore, we invite contributions focused on visibilizing workers that are behind opaque processes of technological solutions e. Our exploration will include consideration of ethics, justice, system design, organization design, technology designers, maintenance, and new forms of work. We also invite to think about labor and power dynamics.
For example: How data-driven technologies in the workplace change practices of managing control, surveillance or resistance? How do new technologies interact with outsourcing dynamics on a global scale, as well as with worker organizations? This open panel showcases new social innovations designed to address the critical cultural work performed by pharmaceuticals, their less licit siblings, and their difficult-to-classify cousins.
The cultural presence of psychoactive drugs has grown in significance with recent changes in governance and commerce; agrarian and industrial production; and environmental and social effects. How shall STS make sense of drug science and pharmaceutical innovation in producing, sustaining, or diminishing drugs and their users? This panel will stage new work that opens up emerging spaces of harm reduction to critical scrutiny; historical, social, and cultural analysis that seeks to regenerate useable pasts; and will take an inclusive approach to new scholarship on the varieties of drug experience and conceptual frameworks used to make sense of drugs as powerful material-semiotic actors.
Domestic technologies have long been a generative focus of feminist technology studies, the study of the social construction of technology, and scholarship on the social shaping of technology. From this foundation, we pursue three lines of inquiry:. Domestic technologies as objects of the home: Deeply sociotechnical, the home mixes the personal, relational, and architectural. How do household technologies, from weighted blankets to kimchi fridges, produce domesticity? Technologies as domestic persons: From homemaker and domestic worker to digital assistant and autonomous vacuum cleaner, the home supports varied forms of personhood.
How do language, performance, and affective labor construct domestic technologies as persons—and humans as domestic technologies? How do materiality and design mark domestic technologies as persons and nonpersons? The domestication processes of technology: The deep familiarity of the home makes it also a terrain of uncanny valleys. What practices, internal or external to the home, render domestic technologies acceptable, intimate, and familiar?
What place does domesticity occupy in larger societal trajectories of technologies? We invite papers drawing on diverse contexts and methodologies. At the same time, there has been a renewed interest in the humanities and social sciences in engaging with many of the same materials at the centre of scientific discussions about the Anthropocene: fossils, minerals, soil, coal, plants, water, and so on. There are roughly three senses of the elemental. In the first sense, elements are discrete chemical entities, like those named and schematised in the Periodic Table of Elements which celebrates its th anniversary this year.
Elemental are the metals and non-metals of specific atomic compositions and weights, arranged and combined in diverse forms. In the second sense, the elemental names the environmental milieu, or material substrate, in which we are irrevocably embedded, in which different forms of life are immersed, enveloped, and take shape.
The third sense of the elemental is the ontological one, the philosophical correlate of the first. Here, the elemental is not a material resource or background, but is a claim about the conditions-of-possibility of being and matter themselves. For an elemental philosophy, there are forces or forms of matter from which every other material is derived; they are the condition and horizon of sensible involvement in the world Engelmann and McCormack, At once, the elemental situates us, embeds us, and is beyond us.
This panel seeks contributions that explore the value and limits of thinking our present elementally. Baskin J. Environmental Values 24 1 : Edwards PN. Boston: MIT Press, Engelmann, S and McCormack D. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 1 Peters JD. Emergent technologies and the implementation of new and innovative models, measures, and systems present rich sites for STS scholars to follow, understand, and intervene on technologies in the making Brey ; Guston As new technologies are implemented in existing biomedical research and healthcare infrastructures, they carry with them great promise to disrupt standards and routine practice as well as improve our understanding of health, illness, and the human body.
Yet as STS scholars have shown, technologies often reproduce and deepen existing disparities Eubanks ; Lee ; Murphy ; Noble ; Sankar et al. Studying how emergent technologies and systems are designed, regenerated, mechanized, commercialized, and integrated offers a window to understand the trajectory of technologies and the racialized, classed, and gendered logic of systems with which they interact. This panel invites empirical contributions that explore how emergent technologies and platforms are constructed, implemented, and standardized in biomedical and healthcare settings.
We particularly are interested in papers that examine the implications of emergent technologies and systems for inequality and health justice. The topic of emotions enters into STS work in diverse way. Baier and Gilligan have offered ground breaking work on the importance of emotionality for feminist critiques of masculine and patriarchal social structures.
The relation between emotions and beneficence, caring, and motivation to help have featured centrally in STS scholarship, e. Empathy is frequently called for in clinical work as a means of improving care, e. Halpern Empathy and sympathy are considered as important for ethnographic work as a means of building trust and rapport, e. This open panel aims for a diverse array of papers on emotions and will consider the following questions:. Baier, Annette C.
Epstein, S. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Gilligan, Carol, Halpern, J. From idealized clinical empathy to empathic communication in medical care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17 2 , Polletta, F. Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements.
University of Chicago Press. Putnam, L. Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. Emotion in organizations, 1, Reeves, S. Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. Bmj, , a STS studies suggest that engineers gather heterogeneous entities in their projects J. Law, M. Callon, L. They make the technology work but also create a world around this technology B. A new world entails the possibility of searching funding and political support, building new social ontology and enacting necessary infrastructure.
Each engineer turns out to be a maker of a new world. However, such a picture contradicts the conventional vision. According to this vision, engineers usually rely on the standardized procedures and act as cogs in large technological systems. As such cogs, they tend to be as far as possible from the public discussions of their projects. So, who are the engineers today? The world-makers or those who perform a set of standard operations as far as possible away from public discussions? Are there cultural differences in such perceptions of engineers?
Our section invites all participants who are interested in technical expertise and public role of engineers to make a current snapshot of engineering profession around the world. The first two decades of the twenty-first century have witnessed increasingly complex questions about ethics in biomedical research, health policy, and clinical practice—from the flourishing field of postgenomic research to the rapidly changing world of reproductive biomedicine. This open panel explores ethical issues in health and biomedicine that are being innovated by and regenerated with STS perspectives.
This panel provides renewed attention to how ethics is and can be conceived and constructed by stakeholders involved in shaping and disseminating biomedical knowledge, and it interrogates how differently-situated actors in the biomedical sciences—from researchers and policymakers to those in the clinic—make sense of, define, challenge, and shape what is considered ethical in their work, and the consequences for health delivery and outcomes.
Paper submissions may include, but need not be limited by, questions such as: How do biomedical researchers decide which questions about health need to be addressed? How do they conceptualize risk, and how do they recruit research subjects? What considerations matter to biomedical researchers when they convey their results?
How and when do health-care policymakers decide to prioritize certain topics? How do policymakers construct guidelines and rules for health research, and to what extent do they consider the impact of their policymaking on different populations? How, when, and why do clinicians offer health testing, information, and interventions to their patients? How do clinicians navigate their various ethical obligations and responsibilities in promoting health and health care across population groups? We invite empirical papers from multiple disciplinary perspectives.
What does STS look like—in its research questions, priorities, and theoretical interlocutors—when race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, migration, citizenship, indigeneity, and blackness, among others, become central problem spaces? Similarly, what does ethnic studies look like when science and technology become fundamental subjects and objects of investigation? When faced with obdurate systems, social movements often create experimental infrastructures that suggest radical new arrangements of resources, knowledges, and power.
While these systems are often materially insufficient to immediately address the full scale of the problems that inspired them, they have the potential to reorganize the conditions that limit what people imagine as possible. What is the role of small-scale systems in pushing large-scale change?
How do designers, developers, and maintainers of small-scale experimental infrastructures imagine the work of scaling up, building out, or strengthening these systems? How do they challenge the limits of time, materiality, and imagination? And how do small-scale infrastructural innovations challenge and reproduce relations of power?
In this open panel, we invite scholars and organizers who are working with movement-built infrastructures in a wide array of arenas. Fundamentally, we are seeking to better understand how projects with incredible potential could scale in ways that change the conditions of possibility in the direction of a wildly different world.
By pulling together these examples, we aim to help each other imagine alternative futures beyond what we can currently conceptualize, and develop strategies for getting from here to there. How should STS approach expert domains that, instead of relying on a codified stock of objective knowledge, privilege the subjective? This panel invites papers about cases including emerging professions and unevenly regulated fields in which experts routinely and explicitly draw on personal experience, beliefs, ethics, and values to make decisions, legitimate their work, and set standards.
Such cases depart from many of the core assumptions of STS scholarship on the social production of scientific knowledge. From the Social Construction of Technology to Actor-Network theory, sociomateriality to infrastructure analysis, human judgment and social interaction are shown by analysts to be crucial in the process and outcome of knowledge production in scientific professions. In most such accounts, analysts reveal that the social production of facts and knowledge is core to a field that is typically—and erroneously—assumed to be objective.
Scholars of the professions, too, have tended to presume objectivity as a feature or goal of the standardized bodies of abstract knowledge they describe professionals as applying to particular cases and defending from competitors. Yet some domains of expert work, like the demedicalized midwifery and nonprofit consulting fields the organizers of this panel study, trouble this assumption with their embrace of the interpretive and the subjective.
How might STS contend with knowledge production and standard-setting in these expert domains that do not have uniform goals of objectivity or codified and settled bodies of knowledge? How do other features of expert domains, including codes of ethics and forms of licensure or credentialing, differ in these circumstances? What challenges are presented for prevailing assumptions in STS about the process of knowledge production or standard-setting by considering expert domains that do not rely on the codified knowledge-producing activities and expectations that characterize the subjects of much STS attention to expertise and the professions?
Healthy oceans contribute significantly to combating climate change. However, a lack of ocean scientific knowledge continues to challenge efforts to protect ocean ecosystems. This gap is steadily closed by global initiatives like the International Census of Marine Life programme. Furthermore, detection methods, observing infrastructures and data management have significantly improved over the past two decades, reconfiguring how oceans are studied and monitored.
In many respects, the study and monitoring of the oceans represents a new form of knowledge production. Challenges include producing systemic insights into ocean ecology; working toward industrial-scale production of innovations; providing scientific data to support environmental policy; and operating against the backdrop of a highly research-focused academic system.
These developments are amplified by data scarcity, complicating the command of funding and shaping policies and practices of studying, monitoring and protecting the oceans. This panel invites contributions on the socio-technical, epistemic, geo political, historical and ethical dimension of these developments, including case studies related to global and national policies and practices of ocean science and monitoring. Which dynamics occur when ocean science becomes even more subject to multiple valuation registers, including those associated with steering efforts toward more interdisciplinary engagement, societal relevance and demands from policy-makers?
How do monitoring policies and practices contribute to the scientific representation of the ocean and its manifestation as a site, where different technological innovations compete for scientific legitimacy and marketability? What are key innovations in ocean science and marine technology and how do they shape the policies and practices of the field? Universalist models of innovation face a crisis of both technical reproducibility and societal support.
The geography of innovation is thoroughly unequal. National Innovation Systems or best practice transfer e. Silicon Valley. At the heart of this problem is the persistent inability to seriously include local socio-economic traditions, political cultures, and regional identity into mainstream innovation theory. We invite contributions incl. How do globally circulating models interrupt or, perhaps, regenerate existing regional identities and institutional orders? The policy required patient education about the harmful effects of substance abuse during pregnancy.
This policy seemed to deter women from seeking prenatal care, deterred them from seeking other social services, and was applied solely to low-income women, resulting in lawsuits. The program was canceled after 5 years, during which 42 women were arrested. A federal agency later determined that the program involved human experimentation without the approval and oversight of an institutional review board IRB. What were the flaws in the program and how would you correct them? What are the ethical implications of charging pregnant women with child abuse? The average newborn weighs approximately 7.
Although small, a newborn is not completely helpless because his reflexes and sensory capacities help him interact with the environment from the moment of birth. All healthy babies are born with newborn reflexes : inborn automatic responses to particular forms of stimulation. Reflexes help the newborn survive until it is capable of more complex behaviors—these reflexes are crucial to survival. They are present in babies whose brains are developing normally and usually disappear around 4—5 months old. The sucking reflex is the automatic, unlearned, sucking motions that infants do with their mouths.
Several other interesting newborn reflexes can be observed. The baby spreads her arms, pulls them back in, and then usually cries. How do you think these reflexes promote survival in the first months of life? Take a few minutes to view this brief video clip illustrating several newborn reflexes. What can young infants see, hear, and smell?
Although vision is their least developed sense, newborns already show a preference for faces. Newborns also have a strong sense of smell. For instance, newborn babies can distinguish the smell of their own mother from that of others. In a study by MacFarlane , 1-week-old babies who were being breastfed were placed between two gauze pads.
By 2 years old the weight will have quadrupled, so we can expect that a 2 year old should weigh between 20 and 40 pounds. The average length of a newborn is Children experience rapid physical changes through infancy and early childhood. Growth slows between 4 and 6 years old: During this time children gain 5—7 pounds and grow about 2—3 inches per year.
Once girls reach 8—9 years old, their growth rate outpaces that of boys due to a pubertal growth spurt. This growth spurt continues until around 12 years old, coinciding with the start of the menstrual cycle. By 10 years old, the average girl weighs 88 pounds, and the average boy weighs 85 pounds. However, the nervous system continues to grow and develop. Each neural pathway forms thousands of new connections during infancy and toddlerhood. This period of rapid neural growth is called blooming. Neural pathways continue to develop through puberty.
The blooming period of neural growth is then followed by a period of pruning, where neural connections are reduced. It is thought that pruning causes the brain to function more efficiently, allowing for mastery of more complex skills Hutchinson, Blooming occurs during the first few years of life, and pruning continues through childhood and into adolescence in various areas of the brain.
The size of our brains increases rapidly.
Writing down these thought processes can help. Antecedent-focused strategies focus on controlling the selection or modification of the context to avoid the emotion altogether or to modify the emotional impact e. Pargament is the author or co-author of around peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the author or editor of five books. Zack, aged seven years, has always had trouble settling down. Damasio, A. Bal, M. Meditation practices that cultivate mindfulness Although there is a heterogeneity amongst styles of meditation practice, the S-ART framework focuses on the two core practices typically described as focused attention FA , a type of concentrative practice and insight or open monitoring OM , a type of receptive practice Buddhaghosa, for detailed description of the practices, see Lutz et al.
During early childhood ages 3—6 , the frontal lobes grow rapidly. Recalling our discussion of the 4 lobes of the brain earlier in this book, the frontal lobes are associated with planning, reasoning, memory, and impulse control.
Therefore, by the time children reach school age, they are developmentally capable of controlling their attention and behavior. Through the elementary school years, the frontal, temporal, occipital, and parietal lobes all grow in size. Motor development occurs in an orderly sequence as infants move from reflexive reactions e. For instance, babies first learn to hold their heads up, then to sit with assistance, and then to sit unassisted, followed later by crawling and then walking.
Motor skills refer to our ability to move our bodies and manipulate objects. Fine motor skills focus on the muscles in our fingers, toes, and eyes, and enable coordination of small actions e. Gross motor skills focus on large muscle groups that control our arms and legs and involve larger movements e. As motor skills develop, there are certain developmental milestones that young children should achieve [link]. For each milestone there is an average age, as well as a range of ages in which the milestone should be reached.
An example of a developmental milestone is sitting. On average, most babies sit alone at 7 months old. If a baby is not holding up his head by 4 months old, he is showing a delay. Some developmental delays can be identified and addressed through early intervention. In addition to rapid physical growth, young children also exhibit significant development of their cognitive abilities. Today, developmental psychologists think Piaget was incorrect. For example, children as young as 3 months old demonstrated knowledge of the properties of objects that they had only viewed and did not have prior experience with them.
In one study, 3-month-old infants were shown a truck rolling down a track and behind a screen. The box, which appeared solid but was actually hollow, was placed next to the track. The truck rolled past the box as would be expected. Then the box was placed on the track to block the path of the truck.
When the truck was rolled down the track this time, it continued unimpeded. The infants spent significantly more time looking at this impossible event [link]. Baillargeon concluded that they knew solid objects cannot pass through each other. Just as there are physical milestones that we expect children to reach, there are also cognitive milestones. It is helpful to be aware of these milestones as children gain new abilities to think, problem solve, and communicate. We can expect children to grasp the concept that objects continue to exist even when they are not in sight by around 8 months old.
Because toddlers i. Toddlers also point to pictures in books and look in appropriate places when you ask them to find objects. Preschool-age children i. Not only can they count, name colors, and tell you their name and age, but they can also make some decisions on their own, such as choosing an outfit to wear. Preschool-age children understand basic time concepts and sequencing e. They also begin to enjoy the use of humor in stories. Because they can think symbolically, they enjoy pretend play and inventing elaborate characters and scenarios.
One of the most common examples of their cognitive growth is their blossoming curiosity. An important cognitive change occurs in children this age. Between 3 and 5 years old, children come to understand that people have thoughts, feelings, and beliefs that are different from their own. This is known as theory-of-mind TOM. Children can use this skill to tease others, persuade their parents to purchase a candy bar, or understand why a sibling might be angry.
When children develop TOM, they can recognize that others have false beliefs Dennett, ; Callaghan et al. Take a look at this video clip showing a false-belief task involving a box of crayons. Cognitive skills continue to expand in middle and late childhood 6—11 years old. Thought processes become more logical and organized when dealing with concrete information [link].
Children at this age understand concepts such as the past, present, and future, giving them the ability to plan and work toward goals. Additionally, they can process complex ideas such as addition and subtraction and cause-and-effect relationships. After that point, it begins to improve through adulthood. Because they understand luck and fairness, children in middle and late childhood 6—11 years old are able to follow rules for games.
One well-researched aspect of cognitive development is language acquisition. As mentioned earlier, the order in which children learn language structures is consistent across children and cultures Hatch, Starting before birth, babies begin to develop language and communication skills. In terms of producing spoken language, babies begin to coo almost immediately.
Cooing is a one-syllable combination of a consonant and a vowel sound e. Interestingly, babies replicate sounds from their own languages. A baby whose parents speak French will coo in a different tone than a baby whose parents speak Spanish or Urdu. After cooing, the baby starts to babble. Babbling begins with repeating a syllable, such as ma-ma, da-da, or ba-ba. When a baby is about 12 months old, we expect her to say her first word for meaning, and to start combining words for meaning at about 18 months. At about 2 years old, a toddler uses between 50 and words; by 3 years old they have a vocabulary of up to 1, words and can speak in sentences.
It has been estimated that, 5 year olds understand about 6, words, speak 2, words, and can define words and question their meanings. They can rhyme and name the days of the week. What accounts for such dramatic language learning by children? Behaviorist B. Skinner thought that we learn language in response to reinforcement or feedback, such as through parental approval or through being understood.
Chomsky called this mechanism a language acquisition device LAD. Who is correct? Both Chomsky and Skinner are right. Remember that we are a product of both nature and nurture. Psychosocial development occurs as children form relationships, interact with others, and understand and manage their feelings.
In social and emotional development, forming healthy attachments is very important and is the major social milestone of infancy. Attachment is a long-standing connection or bond with others. Developmental psychologists are interested in how infants reach this milestone. They ask such questions as: How do parent and infant attachment bonds form? How does neglect affect these bonds?
In the s, Harlow conducted a series of experiments on monkeys. He separated newborn monkeys from their mothers. Each monkey was presented with two surrogate mothers. One surrogate monkey was made out of wire mesh, and she could dispense milk. The other monkey was softer and made from cloth: This monkey did not dispense milk. Research shows that the monkeys preferred the soft, cuddly cloth monkey, even though she did not provide any nourishment. The baby monkeys spent their time clinging to the cloth monkey and only went to the wire monkey when they needed to be feed.
Prior to this study, the medical and scientific communities generally thought that babies become attached to the people who provide their nourishment. However, Harlow concluded that there was more to the mother-child bond than nourishment. Feelings of comfort and security are the critical components to maternal-infant bonding, which leads to healthy psychosocial development.
Building on the work of Harlow and others, John Bowlby developed the concept of attachment theory. He defined attachment as the affectional bond or tie that an infant forms with the mother Bowlby, An infant must form this bond with a primary caregiver in order to have normal social and emotional development. In addition, Bowlby proposed that this attachment bond is very powerful and continues throughout life. He used the concept of secure base to define a healthy attachment between parent and child A secure base is a parental presence that gives the child a sense of safety as he explores his surroundings.
Mutually enjoyable interactions promote the mother-infant bond. Ainsworth wanted to know if children differ in the ways they bond, and if so, why. To find the answers, she used the Strange Situation procedure to study attachment between mothers and their infants In the Strange Situation, the mother or primary caregiver and the infant age months are placed in a room together.
There are toys in the room, and the caregiver and child spend some time alone in the room. After the child has had time to explore her surroundings, a stranger enters the room. The mother then leaves her baby with the stranger. After a few minutes, she returns to comfort her child. The most common type of attachment—also considered the healthiest—is called secure attachment [link].
In this type of attachment, the toddler prefers his parent over a stranger. The attachment figure is used as a secure base to explore the environment and is sought out in times of stress. Securely attached children were distressed when their caregivers left the room in the Strange Situation experiment, but when their caregivers returned, the securely attached children were happy to see them.
Securely attached children have caregivers who are sensitive and responsive to their needs. In secure attachment, the parent provides a secure base for the toddler, allowing him to securely explore his environment. With avoidant attachment , the child is unresponsive to the parent, does not use the parent as a secure base, and does not care if the parent leaves. The toddler reacts to the parent the same way she reacts to a stranger.
When the parent does return, the child is slow to show a positive reaction. These children do not explore the toys in the room, as they are too fearful. During separation in the Strange Situation, they became extremely disturbed and angry with the parent. When the parent returns, the children are difficult to comfort. Finally, children with disorganized attachment behaved oddly in the Strange Situation.
This type of attachment is seen most often in kids who have been abused. Watch this video to view a clip of the Strange Situation. Try to identify which type of attachment baby Lisa exhibits. Just as attachment is the main psychosocial milestone of infancy, the primary psychosocial milestone of childhood is the development of a positive sense of self. How does self-awareness develop? If you place a baby in front of a mirror, she will reach out to touch her image, thinking it is another baby. However, by about 18 months a toddler will recognize that the person in the mirror is herself.
How do we know this? Commonly known as the mirror test, this behavior is demonstrated by humans and a few other species and is considered evidence of self-recognition Archer, At 18 months old they would touch their own noses when they saw the paint, surprised to see a spot on their faces.
Children from 2—4 years old display a great increase in social behavior once they have established a self-concept. They enjoy playing with other children, but they have difficulty sharing their possessions. By 4 years old, children can cooperate with other children, share when asked, and separate from parents with little anxiety. Children at this age also exhibit autonomy, initiate tasks, and carry out plans.
Success in these areas contributes to a positive sense of self. At this age, children recognize their own personality traits as well as some other traits they would like to have. I wish I could be more talkative like my friend Alexa. Development of a positive self-concept is important to healthy development. Development of self-concept continues in elementary school, when children compare themselves to others.
When the comparison is favorable, children feel a sense of competence and are motivated to work harder and accomplish more. They internalize the messages they have received regarding their strengths and weaknesses, keeping some messages and rejecting others. Adolescents who have achieved identity formation are capable of contributing positively to society Erikson, What can parents do to nurture a healthy self-concept?
Diana Baumrind , thinks parenting style may be a factor. Baumrind developed and refined a theory describing four parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved. Parents set rules and explain the reasons behind them. They are also flexible and willing to make exceptions to the rules in certain cases—for example, temporarily relaxing bedtime rules to allow for a nighttime swim during a family vacation. Of the four parenting styles, the authoritative style is the one that is most encouraged in modern American society.
American children raised by authoritative parents tend to have high self-esteem and social skills. However, effective parenting styles vary as a function of culture and, as Small points out, the authoritative style is not necessarily preferred or appropriate in all cultures. In authoritarian style , the parent places high value on conformity and obedience. The parents are often strict, tightly monitor their children, and express little warmth. In contrast to the authoritative style, authoritarian parents probably would not relax bedtime rules during a vacation because they consider the rules to be set, and they expect obedience.
This style can create anxious, withdrawn, and unhappy kids. For instance, first-generation Chinese American children raised by authoritarian parents did just as well in school as their peers who were raised by authoritative parents Russell et al. For parents who employ the permissive style of parenting, the kids run the show and anything goes. Permissive parents make few demands and rarely use punishment. They tend to be very nurturing and loving, and may play the role of friend rather than parent.
In terms of our example of vacation bedtimes, permissive parents might not have bedtime rules at all—instead they allow the child to choose his bedtime whether on vacation or not. However, there are some positive outcomes associated with children raised by permissive parents. They tend to have higher self-esteem, better social skills, and report lower levels of depression Darling, With the uninvolved style of parenting, the parents are indifferent, uninvolved, and sometimes referred to as neglectful.
The children raised in this parenting style are usually emotionally withdrawn, fearful, anxious, perform poorly in school, and are at an increased risk of substance abuse Darling, Temperament refers to innate traits that influence how one thinks, behaves, and reacts with the environment. Children with easy temperaments demonstrate positive emotions, adapt well to change, and are capable of regulating their emotions. Conversely, children with difficult temperaments demonstrate negative emotions and have difficulty adapting to change and regulating their emotions.
Difficult children are much more likely to challenge parents, teachers, and other caregivers Thomas, It builds creativity, problem solving skills, and social relationships. Play also allows children to develop a theory-of-mind as they imaginatively take on the perspective of others. Outdoor play allows children the opportunity to directly experience and sense the world around them.
While doing so, they may collect objects that they come across and develop lifelong interests and hobbies. They also benefit from increased exercise, and engaging in outdoor play can actually increase how much they enjoy physical activity. This helps support the development of a healthy heart and brain.
Despite the adverse consequences associated with reduced play, some children are over scheduled and have little free time to engage in unstructured play. In addition, some schools have taken away recess time for children in a push for students to do better on standardized tests, and many schools commonly use loss of recess as a form of punishment. Do you agree with these practices? Why or why not? Adolescence is a socially constructed concept. In pre-industrial society, children were considered adults when they reached physical maturity, but today we have an extended time between childhood and adulthood called adolescence.
Adolescence is the period of development that begins at puberty and ends at emerging adulthood, which is discussed later. In the United States, adolescence is seen as a time to develop independence from parents while remaining connected to them [link]. The typical age range of adolescence is from 12 to 18 years, and this stage of development also has some predictable physical, cognitive, and psychosocial milestones.
Peers are a primary influence on our development in adolescence. As noted above, adolescence begins with puberty. While the sequence of physical changes in puberty is predictable, the onset and pace of puberty vary widely. Several physical changes occur during puberty, such as adrenarche and gonadarche , the maturing of the adrenal glands and sex glands, respectively. Also during this time, primary and secondary sexual characteristics develop and mature.
Primary sexual characteristics are organs specifically needed for reproduction, like the uterus and ovaries in females and testes in males. Secondary sexual characteristics are physical signs of sexual maturation that do not directly involve sex organs, such as development of breasts and hips in girls, and development of facial hair and a deepened voice in boys. Girls experience menarche , the beginning of menstrual periods, usually around 12—13 years old, and boys experience spermarche , the first ejaculation, around 13—14 years old. During puberty, both sexes experience a rapid increase in height i.
For girls this begins between 8 and 13 years old, with adult height reached between 10 and 16 years old.