As two members of STS Turkey coordination board, we always strive for establishing sustainable international collaborations, including reflexive discussions on how to practice STS in the post-truth age. As the panel organizers, we hope for a scholarly discussion around this topic in the upcoming panel #166 STS for a post-truth age: comparative dialogues on reflexivity, which has been accepted for the upcoming virtual EASST/4S Prague 2020 “Locating and Timing Matters: Significance and Agency of STS in Emerging Worlds” (Aug 18-21).

Panel organizers: Emine Onculer Yayalar (Bilkent University) & Melike Şahinol (Orient-Institut Istanbul)

The linear model of knowledge creation and diffusion has frequently been criticized by STS scholars through an emphasis on social contexts of knowledge. Based on this critique, reflexivity plays an important role in pushing the academic boundaries of STS. True to the conference focus “locating and timing matters”, it is important to take into account various accelerated ways of knowledge circulation, as STS scholars are faced with challenges of the post-truth age.

The panel calls for laying the groundwork for a reflexive dialogue on how to practice STS in the post truth age by emphasizing the importance of reciprocal sharing across a diverse group of participants. We are interested in contributions that engage empirically and theoretically with the concepts of truth, evidence and objectivity from a comparative perspective. We are particularly seeking contributions that highlight the digital and infrastructural materiality of the post-truth age. We also welcome studies of STS practices in different cultural settings, shedding light on heterogeneous ways of practicing and doing STS for a post-truth age. We invite papers dealing with but not limited to following questions:

What does sustainable STS look like? What kinds of practices and output should we be aiming for without necessarily swinging back to the ideal of objectivity?

How can STS continue to critically engage with the hegemonic narratives of S&T and find meaningful ways to address the promotion of alternative facts?

How can we conceptualize expertise in an age of networked advocacy, citizen journalism, participatory science and new demands on verification?