In today’s world, we are offered a constantly expanding number of technologies to integrate into our lives. We now utilise a range of interconnected technologies at work, at home and at leisure. The realm of sport is no exception, where new technologies or enhancements are available to athletes, coaches, scientists, umpires, governing bodies and broadcasters. However, this book argues that in a world where time has become a precious commodity and numerous options are always on offer, functionality is no longer enough to drive their usage within elite sports training, competition and broadcasting. Consistent with an actor-network theory approach as developed by Bruno Latour, John Law, Michele Callon and Annemarie Mol, the book shows how those involved in sport must grapple with a unique set of understandings and connections in order to determine the best combination of technologies and other factors to serve their particular purpose. This book uses a case study approach to demonstrate how there are multiple explanations and factors at play in the use of technology that cannot be reduced to singular explanations like performance enhancement or commercialisation. Specific cases examined include doping, swimsuits, GPS units, Hawk-Eye and kayaks, along with broader areas such as the use of sports scientists in training and the integration of new enhancements in broadcasting. In all cases, the book demonstrates how multiple actors can affect the use or non-use of technology.
This book is about science in theatre and performance. It explores how theatre and performance engage with emerging scientific themes from artificial intelligence to genetics and climate change. The book covers a wide range of performance forms from the spectacle of the Paralympics Opening Ceremony to Broadway musicals, from experimental contemporary performance and opera to educational theatre, Somali poetic drama and grime videos. It features work by pioneering companies including Gob Squad, Headlong Theatre and Theatre of Debate as well as offering fresh analysis of global blockbusters such as Wicked and Urinetown. The book offers detailed description and analysis of theatre and performance practices as well as broader commentary on the politics of theatre as public engagement with science. It documents important examples of collaborative practice with extended discussion of the Theatre of Debate process developed by Y Touring theatre company, exploration of bilingual theatre-making in East London and an account of how grime MCs and dermatologists ended up making a film together in Birmingham. The interdisciplinary approach draws on contemporary research in theatre and performance studies in combination with key ideas from science studies. It shows how theatre can offer important perspectives on what the philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers has called ‘cosmopolitics’. The book argues that theatre can flatten knowledge hierarchies and hold together different ways of knowing.
magistrates to try again. To prevent this, d’Argenson had to reach quickly into
a far corner of the realm and silence the Bretons once and for all.
The second problem was how to deal with the national debt and, more speciﬁcally, what to do about the augmentations de gages of the judges. JohnLaw
inherited this problem, as after the lit de justice he set about reconstructing the
economy and ﬁnances of the realm. The foreigner whom the magistrates of
Paris had so grievously antagonized ended up with the power to pay, or not to
pay, their augmentations de gages. On the other
supporter of JohnLaw, he seemed fully
capable of overcoming the Parlement of Paris, as though born for the moment.
He had clashed with the tribunal over jurisdiction and assembled embarrassing
personal ﬁles on some of its magistrates, as they had reason to know. In 1716
the Parlement, seeking its revenge, attempted to try him for embezzlement and
fraud, a fate from which the regent providentially rescued him; but the experience naturally made him more hostile than ever towards the judges.
In the summer of 1718, d’Argenson assumed the key role in the regency’s
; and this sober assessment, although apparently well received, undermined his standing with the regent in ways that he did not then perceive.
Orléans had already turned to the Scottish ﬁnancier JohnLaw for more imaginative solutions. Unaware that the ground was shifting beneath his feet,
Noailles forged ahead.22
In August, the regent approved Noailles’s ‘great edict’, the name it acquired
from its seventeen lengthy articles intended to reform royal ﬁnances and to stimulate the national economy. It was also called the dixième edict, since it exempted
translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in JohnLaw (ed.), Power, action, and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? (New York: Routledge, 1986), pp. 196–233; and JohnLaw, ‘Notes on the theory of actor-network: ordering, strategy and heterogeneity’, Systems practice , 5.4 (1992), 379–93.
Major readings of Hildeburh's role in the Finnsburg episode include Jane Chance, Woman as hero in Old English
( 2012 ) describes information as a point of
coherence and beauty amidst the chaotic, self-fulfilling operations of
the digital world. If we were to apply this to the spectrum Dodge and
Kitchin have developed, information combines scattered data to create
meaning. As JohnLaw (2002) and James Ash ( 2014 ) have noted, data are characterised by homeomorphism wherein
they change form and meaning as they are processed
Ontological coordination and the assessment of consistency in asylum requests
not be a lofty endeavour. But I doubt I would have taken these critiques
so seriously if I had not been sensitised by Mol to think of reality as
a local achievement. With Michel Callon ( 1986 ), Bruno Latour ( 1986 ; 1993 ; 1999 ; 2010 ) and JohnLaw (Law 1987 ; 1994 ; 1997 ; 2004 ; Law and Urry 2004 ), among other authors, Mol is part of a
small group of scholars in science studies who study knowledge practices
with an eye to contingency and
Future Earth, co-production and the experimental life of a global institution
Eleanor Hadley Kershaw
Leviathan and the hybrid network: Future
Earth, co-production and the experimental
life of a global institution
Eleanor Hadley Kershaw
In the opening words of A Sociology of Monsters, JohnLaw caricatures
a middle-class white male, middle-aged, non-disabled person’s perspective on the history of sociology: ‘We founded ourselves on class; then,
at a much later date we learned a little about ethnicity; more recently
we discovered gender; and more recently still we learned something
… about age and disability’ (Law, 1991: 1). Thus, the hypothetical
have noted that ANT and Foucauldian theory hold a number of
similarities, most importantly their understanding of power; indeed, one
of the most prominent ANT theorists, JohnLaw, claims that ANT owes a
debt to Foucault in this regard (Law, 1992 ).
However, in line with the ANT perspective discussed throughout this
book, ANT goes further than Foucault in arguing for the significance of
non-humans as actors in the workings of society.
Foucault argued that power reaches bodies through what he