Trust in numbers: Serious numbers and speculative fictions in rare earth elements exploration.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1177/03063127231205044
Tom Özden-Schilling
{"title":"Trust in numbers: Serious numbers and speculative fictions in rare earth elements exploration.","authors":"Tom Özden-Schilling","doi":"10.1177/03063127231205044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the early 2010s, a spectacular fall in prices for a class of mineral commodities called the rare earth elements (REEs) and the collapse of hundreds of new exploration companies made clear the fragility of the high-risk markets around these companies and the strategies of legitimation that supported them. New regulatory processes built around technical disclosures generated vast stores of geotechnical data. Rather than generating trust among market actors, however, these processes dramatically altered the temporalities of global extraction and energized unruly narrative spaces. In their efforts to keep mineral claims active and companies afloat, REE-focused exploration experts have struggled to navigate different arenas of discussion while holding their respective logics in tension. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork with exploration geologists and promoters, this article examines how experts federate flows of 'serious' and 'speculative' information in both carefully regulated reports and rumor-filled online forums. Such spaces are organized by aesthetic conventions and social criteria for establishing persuasiveness-forms that STS scholars have long analyzed as literary technologies. Rather than helping to secure experts' authority, however, I argue that the diverse literary technologies that now dominate exploration promotion and finance work have radically redistributed interpretive roles. In their struggles to mediate senses of 'crisis' endemic within venture markets, exploration experts must enact the ideals undergirding new regulatory requirements even as they learn to defer to the speculative musings of others.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":" ","pages":"281-304"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231205044","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the early 2010s, a spectacular fall in prices for a class of mineral commodities called the rare earth elements (REEs) and the collapse of hundreds of new exploration companies made clear the fragility of the high-risk markets around these companies and the strategies of legitimation that supported them. New regulatory processes built around technical disclosures generated vast stores of geotechnical data. Rather than generating trust among market actors, however, these processes dramatically altered the temporalities of global extraction and energized unruly narrative spaces. In their efforts to keep mineral claims active and companies afloat, REE-focused exploration experts have struggled to navigate different arenas of discussion while holding their respective logics in tension. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork with exploration geologists and promoters, this article examines how experts federate flows of 'serious' and 'speculative' information in both carefully regulated reports and rumor-filled online forums. Such spaces are organized by aesthetic conventions and social criteria for establishing persuasiveness-forms that STS scholars have long analyzed as literary technologies. Rather than helping to secure experts' authority, however, I argue that the diverse literary technologies that now dominate exploration promotion and finance work have radically redistributed interpretive roles. In their struggles to mediate senses of 'crisis' endemic within venture markets, exploration experts must enact the ideals undergirding new regulatory requirements even as they learn to defer to the speculative musings of others.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对数字的信任:稀土元素勘探中的严肃数字和思辨小说。
2010年代初,一类被称为稀土元素(REEs)的矿物商品的价格大幅下跌,以及数百家新勘探公司的倒闭,清楚地表明了这些公司周围高风险市场的脆弱性以及支持它们的合法化战略。围绕技术披露建立的新监管程序产生了大量的岩土工程数据。然而,这些过程非但没有在市场参与者之间产生信任,反而极大地改变了全球提取的时间性,并激发了不守规矩的叙事空间。在努力保持矿产索赔活跃和公司运营的过程中,专注于稀土元素的勘探专家一直在努力驾驭不同的讨论领域,同时保持各自的逻辑紧张。这篇文章借鉴了勘探地质学家和推动者的人种学实地调查,探讨了专家们如何在精心监管的报告和充满谣言的在线论坛中联合“严肃”和“推测”信息流。这些空间是由美学惯例和社会标准组织起来的,以建立说服力形式,STS学者长期以来一直将其分析为文学技术。然而,我认为,现在主导勘探推广和金融工作的各种文学技术并没有帮助确保专家的权威,而是从根本上重新分配了解释角色。在努力调解风险市场中普遍存在的“危机”感的过程中,勘探专家必须制定新的监管要求的理想,即使他们学会听从他人的投机思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Virtual diversity and the value-ladenness of science Silence of the labs. The commercial roots of the genomic commons From the bench to public policy: Enhancing public trust in science. Making expert advice public in a time of emergency: Independent SAGE and the contestation of science during the Covid pandemic in the UK.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1