A collaboration with the European Forest Institute exploring how arts- and humanities-based digital methods can be used to understand forest issues and to explore engagement around reforestation. Undertaken as part of the SUPERB project on upscaling forest restoration.
This is an ongoing research project and materials will be listed here when they are available.
Over the past decade “nature-based solutions” have risen to prominence as part of international commitments to addressing different kinds of societal issues and public problems including climate change, biodiversity loss, well being, disaster reduction and economic development.
In this collaborative digital methods project we gather and repurpose online materials associated with “nature-based solutions” on a variety of platforms and online spaces in order to understand more about the origins, development and politics of this term.
The project included a series of workshops with campaigners and investigators from Global Witness, researchers from the departments of Geography and Digital Humanities at King’s College London and DensityDesign Lab at the Politecnico di Milano. It received support from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
For more about the project see:
How to capture the operation of political bots networks? Which types of accounts compose bot ecologies? How do bots promote content? To what extent do platform moderation policies impact bots’ activities over time? How does inauthentic activity change as content moderation measures refine their capture of bots and other “platform manipulations”? This project gathers and profiles accounts operating in Brazilian online political debates through the use of quali-quantitative methods. It investigates the activities of pro- and anti- president Jair Bolsonaro bots across platforms (i.e. Instagram, Twitter and TikTok) to make “inauthentic” behaviour visible, as well as addressing challenges of studying networked disinformation environments.
The project explores methodological approaches for studying inauthentic behaviour online that moves beyond bot detection towards an analysis of their vernacular, collective strategies and particularities. The project aims to produce a series of research reports on “bolsobots”, their networks and digital methods recipes to understand their social lives.
In collaboration with organisations involved in its development and promotion, the aim of this project is to critically document and analyse the making of a new collective ethnic identifier in the United Kingdom: “East and Southeast Asian” (ESEA).
The term ESEA has emerged relatively recently in the UK, coming to prominence since 2018. This term is typically used as a bottom-up collective ethnic identifier for communities who originate from, or have ties to, East and Southeast Asia. Increasingly, it also functions as means of categorising communities to secure political recognition and representation.
Ethnic and racial categories are crucial yet contested components of modern societies. These categories are often essential for tracking the presence of minority groups within a polity and ensuring their representation and inclusion in formal politics and institutional settings. But such categories can also be instruments of exclusion – particularly if they mis-represent the groups they’re supposed to encompass. Indeed, communities often also form in resistance to the very mechanisms of categorisation.
In the past few years, a number of different activist groups and civil society campaigns have begun to use ESEA for at least three key reasons:
- In solidaristic response to the intensification of anti-Asian racism and violence spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, and racism against BIPOC highlighted by BLM;
- To campaign for the institutional inclusion of ESEA communities (In the UK, the word “Asian” typically refers to people of South Asian origin); and
- As a form of political community-building.
The emergence of this term provides us with a rare opportunity to study a collective ethnic identifier in the making. Using digital methods and approaches derived from critical code race studies, we hope to produce research outcomes that our collaborating organisations can use in their advocacy work, while also producing a better understanding of how and why such collective community identifiers emerge and how they come to be institutionalised as categories.
For more on this project see:
What are algorithms? Who and what do they involve? What do they do? What is at stake with them? How can we account for them? How can we respond to them?
Following on from the Field Guide to “Fake News”, A Field Guide To Algorithms aims to gather and curate different starting points, recipes, approaches, experiments in participation and activities for collective inquiry into algorithms and the collectives, cultures, infrastructures, imaginaries and practices associated with them.