Draft Article Mapping

About this document

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

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

• What is our research question?
• What is/are our hypotheses?

Literature review

Who are we writing against?

• Techno-fetishist authors (Amoore, others) for whom algorithms are unitary and mark a specific "era" (See Cloud Ethics 1)
• Sociologists of security who refuse to open the "black box" of security devices (Bigo et al, for a critique see Amicelle et al 2015 2 → The idea here is to show that algorithms are a particular form of non-human disposition. As such it should also be mapped, as it contains its affordances, etc.
• Dis-embodied social science that relegates human knowledge to inference (maybe this is a bit too much for this paper here

Theoretical approach

• What do we offer as an alternative?
  • 1) An approach that follows this idea: ‘security practices = actors’ social dispositions [habitus] + socio-technical characteristics of devices + context [field]’. What are the consequences of this for a
  • 2) Visualisations as both an object of analysis and a tool of academic rerpesentation. How do we develop a critical form of representing that goes beyond the current practices?
    • From photographic / maps to cinematic visualisation
    • From cognitive only to cognitive+sensory forms of visusalition.

Methodology: "cinematic visualisation"

• Review of existing methodologies
  • 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 as the basis for cinematic visualisation
  • Sources of inspiration
  • Premises and how it works

Conclusion

This page uses the following references:

• References#_SCITEa6abfdb49064c711ef2feadc3b0b3736
• References#_SCITE15092448525a891014518719cc1616c7

What links here