Draft Article Mapping
About this document[edit | ]
Let's see if the wiki can be a useful place to draft both thoughts and a final text for the mapping article. The advantage of doing it in the wiki: links to entities, actors, etc. The versioning. The fact that all is one place. Let's see if it works. Using Zotero bibtex identifiers for referencing.
Abstract[edit | ]
The aim of the this article is to discuss critical visualisation practices in security studies. Social network graphs, multiple correspondance analysis, controvery analyses, various topographical representations of social relations have been at the core of critical security studies. Yet what does the act of mapping precisely do? Does mapping implicitely brackets, because it jumps to another modality of knowledge production, with different codes and affordances, the critical charge of critical analysis? And if so, how can we imagine alternative forms of mapping which carry with them an explicitation of their biases and implicit choices? [maybe refine the problem here]. Based on the mapping work carried out for the project Security Vision, this article reflects critically on specific techniques of mapping, but also more broadly about the practice of mapping as a particular instance of critical making in critical security studies.
Introduction[edit | ]
- What is our research question?
- What is/are our hypotheses?
Literature review[edit | ]
Who are we writing against?
- Techno-fetishist authors (Amoore, others) for whom algorithms are unitary and mark a specific "era" (See Cloud Ethics 1)
- Sociologist of security that don't open the "black box" of security devices (Bigo et al, for a critique see Amicelle et al 2015 2
Methodology[edit | ]
- Field theory and multiple correspondance analysis
- STS and controversy mapping
- What is left out of these forms of mapping
- What we propose: critical mapping practices