Microbiological risk assessment: making sense of an increasingly complex world

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Duncan Craig
1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Haykin ◽  
J. Principe
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Ana Aliverti

The Introduction presents the main arguments advanced in the book, details the methodology used, and describes the structure followed. As an institutional ethnography of inland migration policing, the book examines the growing emphasis on borders in policing, and describes the range of challenges, dilemmas, and contradictions that the task of maintaining order and exercising state power in an interconnected and polarized world animate. State power, as wielded by the officers I observed, defies the Weberian rational paradigm of bureaucracy and unsettles conventional models, built on rigid rules and constrained discretion, since to a large extent it relies on non-rational, magic-like elements to solve policing problems in an increasingly complex world. The random, confusing, and informal nature of power in this domain also pervades questions of access and negotiations to research its institutions, and ultimately shaped the fate of this study. In attending to and making sense of these border paradoxes, I rely on an eclectic theoretical scaffold drawing from a wide range of sociological and anthropological accounts of the police and the state in diverse settings, including the bourgeoning policing literature on postcolonial societies in the global South, and place emphasis on the global and historical continuities and connections in the police’s institutional practices and cultural norms.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 205395172199521
Author(s):  
Chuncheng Liu ◽  
Ross Graham

Governments and citizens of nearly every nation have been compelled to respond to COVID-19. Many measures have been adopted, including contact tracing and risk assessment algorithms, whereby citizen whereabouts are monitored to trace contact with other infectious individuals in order to generate a risk status via algorithmic evaluation. Based on 38 in-depth interviews, we investigate how people make sense of Health Code ( jiankangma), the Chinese contact tracing and risk assessment algorithmic sociotechnical assemblage. We probe how people accept or resist Health Code by examining their ongoing, dynamic, and relational interactions with it. Participants display a rich variety of attitudes toward privacy and surveillance, ranging from fatalism to the possibility of privacy to trade-offs for surveillance in exchange for public health, which is mediated by the perceived effectiveness of Health Code and changing views on the intentions of institutions who deploy it. We show how perceived competency varies not just on how well the technology works, but on the social and cultural enforcement of various non-technical aspects like quarantine, citizen data inputs, and cell reception. Furthermore, we illustrate how perceptions of Health Code are nested in people’s broader interpretations of disease control at the national and global level, and unexpectedly strengthen the Chinese authority’s legitimacy. None of the Chinese public, Health Code, or people’s perceptions toward Health Code are predetermined, fixed, or categorically consistent, but are co-constitutive and dynamic over time. We conclude with a theorization of a relational perception and methodological reflections to study algorithmic sociotechnical assemblages beyond COVID-19.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuncheng Liu ◽  
Ross Graham

Governments, institutions, and citizens of nearly every nation have been compelled to respond to COVID-19. Many measures have been adopted, including contact tracing and risk assessment, whereby citizen whereabouts are constantly monitored to trace contact with other infectious individuals and isolate contagious parties via algorithmic evaluation of their risk status. This paper investigates how citizens make sense of Health Code (jiankangma), the contact tracing and risk assessment algorithm in China. We probe how people accept or resist the algorithm by examining their ongoing, dynamic, and relational interactions with it over time. By seeking a deeper, iterative understanding of how individuals accept or resist the algorithm, our data unearths three key sites of concern. First, how understandings of algorithmic surveillance shape and are shaped by notions of privacy, including fatalism towards the possibility of true privacy in China and a trade-off narrative between privacy and twin imperatives of public and economic health. Second, how trust in the algorithm is mediated by the perceived competency of the technology, the veracity of input data, and well-publicized failures in both data collection and analysis. Third, how the implementation of Health Code in social life alters beliefs about the algorithm, such as its further role after COVID-19 passes, or contradictory and disorganized enforcement measures upon risk assessment. Chinese citizens make sense of Health Code in a relational fashion, whereby users respond very differently to the same sociotechnical assemblage based upon social and individual factors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document