Suspicion

In 2014 Barbados introduced a vaccine to prevent certain strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV) and reduce the risk of cervical cancer in young women. Despite the disproportionate burden of cervical cancer in the Caribbean, many Afro-Barbadians chose not to immunize their daughters. In Suspicion, Nicole Charles reframes Afro-Barbadian vaccine refusal from a question of hesitancy to one of suspicion. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, black feminist theory, transnational feminist studies and science and technology studies, Charles foregrounds Afro-Barbadians' gut feelings and emotions and the lingering trauma of colonial and biopolitical violence. She shows that suspicion, far from being irrational, is a fraught and generative affective orientation grounded in concrete histories of mistrust of government and coercive medical practices foisted on colonized peoples. By contextualizing suspicion within these longer cultural and political histories, Charles troubles traditional narratives of vaccine hesitancy while offering new entry points into discussions on racialized biopolitics, neocolonialism, care, affect, and biomedicine across the Black diaspora. Duke University Press Scholars of Color First Book Award recipient

Building the case for the use of gut-feelings in cancer referrals: perspectives of patients referred to a non-specific symptoms pathway

Background: Gut-feelings may be useful when dealing with uncertainty that is ubiquitous in primary care. Both patients and GPs experience this uncertainty but patients’ views on gut-feelings in the consultation have not been explored. Aim: To explore patients’ perceptions of gut-feelings in decision-making, and compare these perceptions to those of GPs. Design and setting: Qualitative interviews with 21 patients in Oxfordshire, UK. Methods: Patients whose referral to a cancer pathway was based on their GP’s gut-feeling were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted November 2019-January 2020 face-to-face or over the telephone. Data were analysed with a thematic analysis and mind mapping approach. Results: Some patients described experiencing gut-feelings about their own health but often their willingness to share this with their GP was dependent on an established doctor-patient relationship. Patients expressed similar perspectives on the use of gut-feelings in consultations to those reported by GPs. Patients saw GPs’ gut-feelings as grounded in their experience and generalist expertise, and part of a process of evidence gathering. Patients suggested that GPs were justified in using gut-feelings because of their role in arranging access to investigations, the difficult ‘grey-area’ of presentations, and the time and resource limited nature of primary care. When GPs communicated that they had a gut-feeling, some saw this as an indication that they were being taken seriously. Conclusion. Patients accepted that GPs use gut-feelings to guide decision-making. Future research on this topic should include more diverse samples and address the areas of concern shared by patients and GPs.

Six sigma project prioritization and selection methods: a systematic literature review

Purpose Given the critical role of project prioritization and selection process in Six Sigma efforts, this study aims to analyse the relevant literature to answer this question: What types of project prioritization and selection methods have been used in Six Sigma research? Design/methodology/approach The study implemented the systematic literature review (SLR) method to identify and review all relevant previous studies. Findings The study revealed that 59 articles focused on the topic used 111 methods, analytic hierarchy process appeared as the most frequently used method with 12 articles (20%) and one-third of the methods used in the current Six Sigma project selection literature contained multi-criteria decision-making methods. In total, 61% of 59 articles were not published in the journals ranked by the ABDC’s list. Only 17% of the articles reviewed in this study were published in journals ranked as B category and 12% of the articles were published in A category journals. Practical implications The findings of this literature review may help Six Sigma practitioners and researchers accurately identify project prioritization and selection methods, considering that qualitative and quantitative scientific methods guarantee to make better decisions than “gut feelings” of the decision makers in this process. Originality/value Although a variety of studies focused on the topic, an SLR is lacking in the area of Six Sigma project prioritization and selection. Therefore, this study was constructed using the SLR method to analyse the topic.

The Efficacy and Superiority of the Expert Systems in Reservoir Engineering Decision Making Processes

In the process of making a critical decision in reservoir engineering, most of the time we find ourselves in a quandary. Like in any other scientific or technical field, when we find ourselves having to make a critical decision at a juncture, we cannot go ahead with our gut feelings, but rather must figure out what knowledge and information is lacking. In generating the missing knowledge and understanding, the depth and the rapid nature of the search will surface as two critical parameters. In other words, most of the time, a shallow search that can be conducted in a short period of time will not produce the missing information and the knowledge and more often, possibly, it will provide misguidance. When a large volume of sources of information is reviewed and the missing knowledge is generated using unbiased deductive methodologies, then, one can make an informed decision based on facts rather than intuition. In achieving such a desired result, it will be necessary to use fast algorithmic protocols to not sacrifice the wide nature of the search domain, to ensure that it is possible to generate the desired solution. In this paper, it is shown how in reservoir engineering desirable decisions can be reached in a timely manner choosing the most appealing course of action. It is true that in reservoir engineering applications, the decision-making process may involve a blend of intuition and scientific and rational thinking, critical factors such as blind spots, and the use of conventional methodologies that make decision-making hard to fully operationalize or to get a handle on. Luckily, there are mathematical and computational tools to ensure that scientists/engineers consistently make correct decisions, which include gathering as much information as possible and considering all possible alternatives (like combinatorial analysis protocols). The tool (model) proposed in this paper for making critical reservoir engineering decisions is a new computational platform/protocol that exploits the advantages of mathematically developed formulations and of the models that are based on the data/information collected. It is furthermore shown that the analyses conducted, and critical decisions reached, represent more thorough and far-reaching solutions that are structured using less computational overhead, thereby increasing the quality of the decision even further.

The The Making of Crime Predictions: Sociotechnical Assemblages and the Controversies of Governing Future Crime

We are witnessing an upsurge in crime forecasting software, which supposedly draws predictive knowledge from data on past crime. Although prevention and anticipation are already embedded in the apparatuses of government, going beyond a mere abstract aspiration, the latest innovations hold out the promise of replacing police officers’ “gut feelings” and discretionary risk assessments with algorithmic-powered, quantified analyses of risk scores. While police departments and private companies praise such innovations for their cost-effective rationale, critics raise concerns regarding their potential for discriminating against poor, black, and migrant communities. In this article, I address such controversies by telling the story of the making of CrimeRadar, an app developed by a Rio de Janeiro-based think tank in partnership with private associates and local police authorities. Drawing mostly on Latour’s contributions to the emerging literature on security assemblages, I argue that we gain explanatory and critical leverage by looking into the mundane practices of making and unmaking sociotechnical arrangements. That is, I address the chain of translations through which crime data are collected, organized, and transformed into risk scores. In every step, new ways of seeing and presenting crime are produced, with a significant impact on how we experience and act upon (in)security.