Skip to content

Closing Reflections-Question 3

Given our conversations, and other scholarship that you’re aware of, what publications would you like to see moving forward? (e.g. What journal special issues, topics, edited compilations, symposia, outreach efforts, etc…) Are there non-publication or non-traditional/non-academic outputs beyond those that you’ve already identified in response to Question 1?

  1. Daniel Aldrich permalink

    Often, we have few incentives to move beyond the traditional peer reviewed journals, but I think we should consider alternatives. I’d love to see some work in the policy space – the Global Policy Research Institute (GPRI) at Purdue, for example, actually provides funds for policy briefs on issues of disaster response and mitigation. Additionally, on line forums – such as the Teach 3.11 space and the Japan Forum – should be given serious consideration.

  2. I think Dan’s reply is on target here. I will add that it is possible to combine more innovative digital publications and the more traditional peer review process. Especially since there are now a number of web-based tools to help facilitate review and transmission of referee comments, editing, etc. These provide a foundation that allows people to get more professional credit for work in the context of more innovative publication efforts.

    To this list of venues Dan has mentioned, let me add the Association for East Asian Environmental History, the Social Science History Association, and major disciplinary associations.

    Edited collections are potentially useful, but they need to be very clearly speaking to a common set of points and essays need to be well integrated. Loose collections of essays no longer get much serious attention.

  3. Nicolas Sternsdorff permalink

    I think a special issue of a journal can be powerful in setting the agenda for this kind of research, and to draw attention from other scholars. Echoing the previous comments, this should hopefully not be the only venue for this work.

    In Japanese, it was mentioned during our discussions that there is a format of short(er) books written for a more popular audience. The material on fukushima placed comparatively with other disasters, and more theoretical pieces could be of interest in Japan.

  4. Yasuhito Abe permalink

    I am wondering if we should discuss who we think our readers will be. If we would like the popular audience to read our work, open-access journal could be one of the useful venues for this work.

  5. I would like to help increase our participation in documentary film production, participation of STS researchers in criticizing and helping to advance citizen science projects, and active analysis and critique of journalistic accounts of groups we study with.

  6. Aya Okada permalink

    I am inclined towards pursuing non-academic outputs. While a website or a report that’s accessible to policymakers and practitioners is one idea, I would push book publication. In case of the Japan disasters, there’s been countless number of books published in Japanese/Japan and in English, but there are not many books whose authors are from multiple disciplines nor books that are published in multiple languages. We could try publishing one in English and a translated version in Japanese.

  7. I think the next step is to consider forming smaller groups that are focused on sub-themes that emerged in the conference. For example, some folks were highly interested in developing better responses to disasters. Others were interested in the use of social media in the response to Fukushima. Others were particularly interested in forming bridges between Japanese and western scholarship. Pursuing these topics in smaller and more focused groups may be effective.

  8. Norio permalink

    I think traditional publication still work well. Special issues of a Journal on this issues involvining varuous research field is the one I want to read.

  9. Norio permalink

    I am still looking for my research work could help the people in impacted people. We should ask them.

  10. Rethy Chhem permalink

    1. Consider also publishing in journals that are read by policy-makers. Scholarly journals are often ignored by them. Effective papers should be short and right to the point (opposite to the thick narrative). Senior Policy makers have short attention span, due to the nature of their work. They need to make decisions quickly as dictated by events. They do not have the luxury of “geologic” timeframe that scholars do.
    2. In the particular case of Japan context: Consider translation of STS papers that have been published in Japanese language. Research should be grounded to the reality of the field.

  11. Jen Schneider permalink

    All of the above? I think we should be targeting multiple audiences, so our formats will vary according to who we’re trying to reach and what we want to accomplish. If this is about pushing forward the development of a subfield (whether that is Disaster STS or Fukushima studies or something else) then special issues of journals and edited volumes and conference panels make sense. If we want to reach policymakers, policy briefs. Community members: film or new media. I don’t think we should narrow our focus but rather engage and embrace a wide range of expression and scholarship.

  12. I think there’s value both in traditional academic publications (a long-term need to raise awareness of this topic in those academic communities), and in broader publication venues (both print and electronic). There may be enough papers from the 2013 workshop, and enough potential spinoff products, to allow for one or two academic books and/or journal issues as well as a nuumber of broader publications. In the case of book projects, I;d recommend making it part of the book proposal that the editors and publisher would look for specific ways to promote and disseminate the book broadly.
    I think we should also get the word out as widely as possible that the workshop papers are available online–announcements to academic, professional, and general audience listserves would be useful Each of us can probably think of one or more places to post such an announcement. Maybe we could create a page on this website to keep track of those efforts?

  13. 1) For a large audience, see my invitation for Japan Focus (answer to question 1)

    2) For a dialogue with other STSers in Asia, I was confirmed by the Editor in Chief that EASTS ( ) would very much welcome a special feature from the Berkeley workshop.

  14. Ryuma Shineha permalink

    Paul-san mentioned East Asian STS journal, and I agree with his idea.
    And off course, Teach 3.11 is good space for outreach and communication.

    In addition, journals related to public policy may be one of the arena for discussions.

  15. Monamie Bhadra permalink

    In addition to what has been said, I personally would like to see creative non fiction a product of our work to help reach a broader audience. This something I plan to do after my dissertation.

  16. Given that our work does have policy relevance and an “interventionist” bent, I agree that publishing in a range of media and fora, aimed at a range of audiences, would be ideal. This should include not only publication but symposia and conferences at which scholars can interact directly with each other and with their audiences. In addition, some institutions invite visiting scholars from various disciplines to work under the umbrella of annual or bi-annual research themes — e.g., Cornell’s Society for the Humanities currently has a “risk” theme, and Amherst’s Copeland Colloquium is running “Catastrophe and the Catastrophic — but I don’t see much communication between these groups, beyond perhaps personal connections. Somehow tracking these endeavors and fostering relationships and dialogue between them would be productive for everyone.

  17. Karena Kalmbach permalink

    Comparative works (through time and space) on the various aspects of nuclear disasters are a field where there is still a lot of research that needs to be done. In this regard, an edited volume / journal special issue as well as a conference panel / symposia / workshop would be a good initiative to bring together scholars from various disciplines who research nuclear disasters and discuss which categories of comparison are the most important to be further investigated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: