Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Welcome

Welcome to my personal webpage.

I am PhD researcher at the Department of Technology and Society of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Maastricht University (The Netherlands). My PhD focuses on the controversies around the siting of  base stations for wireless communication technologies (such as UMTS, GSM, C2000, Wifi, etc.) in municipalities in the Netherlands and Belgium.

I hold a Bachelor degree in Communication Studies (Xios Hogeschool, Belgium, 2003), a Bachelor of Arts in Arts and Culture (Maastricht University, 2006) and completed my studies with a two-year interdisciplinary Research Master in Cultures of Arts, Science and Technology (CAST) (Maastricht University, 2008). Before starting my PhD in September 2009, I worked as a junior researcher.

You can find my staff pages at

http://www.fdcw.unimaas.nl/staff/hermans

Two weeks ago I visited the Research Centre of Risk Governance of the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona for two days. I was warmly welcomed by dr. Anna Garcia i Hom and Joaquin Rodríguez Álvarez, researchers at GRISC. The aim of the visit was to get to know the research at GRISC and present our research team at Maastricht University. At GRISC, a team of researchers is also working on the controversies around the siting of mobile phone base stations. I was very interested in exchanging ideas about this topic. We discussed our mutual interests at length during two working sessions.

During my stay I also gave a presentation to the students of the EPSI (School of Prevention and integral safety) about my PhD project.

For more information on GRISC visit http://www.grisc.cat/en

Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW) competition ‘The 50th question of the Dutch science agenda’

 

‘How can we deal with possible risks from scientific and technological innovations?’ With this question and accompanying essay Tessa Fox, Marijke Hermans and Marjolein van Asselt won the competition for the 50th question of the Dutch Science Agenda from the KNAW.

Early 2011 the KNAW published a Dutch Science Agenda with 49 interesting and pressing research questions that span the different scientific disciplines, from mathematics to history. The Academy was looking for a 50th question to complete the agenda and asked her members of the Young Academy (of which Marjolein van Asselt is a member) to send in the questions they felt were lacking. Tessa, Marijke and Marjolein thought an interdisciplinary question that captures the heart of many public debates would be a valuable contribution.

The bottom-line of the essay is the argument that innovations create uncertainties about possible risks that are often not calculable with modern technical and scientific methods. Instead of a naïve faith in science as the only legitimate and right partner in solving risk questions, interdisciplinary empirical research (risk governance) argues that in cases of risk controversies it is important to acknowledge uncertainties in order to sensibly deal with them.

The official ceremony took place on Monday 26 September in the Trippenhuis inAmsterdamwhere they received a cheque of 5000 euro from the KNAW president Robbert Dijkgraaf.

————————————————————————————————–

Article in de Observant:

The 50 most important research questions for the Netherlands

Learn to live with uncertainty

29-9-2011 -

How to deal with potential risks of technological and scientific innovations?

Radiation from radio/TV/mobile telephone masts, the chemical composition of children’s toys, genetically modified food, underground storage of CO2. All examples of technological innovations that have led to social unrest, to discussions about risks and safety.

Policymakers then turn to scientists and ask whether it is a threat to public health or not. But they cannot give the answer, because neither the dangers nor the safety can be determined beyond doubt. In short, how should we deal with this uncertainty?

Marijke Hermans and Tessa Fox, two Ph.D. candidates at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, are both doing research on this issue. Hermans is focusing more on social unrest, such as in the case of the installation of mobile phone base stations. She visits cities in Flanders and the Netherlands and talks to citizens, policymakers and journalists.

“At the end of the nineties, governments felt that these base stations had to be installed, no matter what. The only question that was asked was whether they were safe or not. That the stations would not be welcome, could have been expected after the protests by those living near nuclear power stations. Nevertheless, the authorities never wondered how to deal with the involvement of local citizens and other stakeholders. It is advisable not to limit issues like these to a merely scientific matter. Other target groups should also be involved.”

Fox focuses on the policymakers and their choices, for example on the basis of the case of the polycarbonate baby bottles containing the chemical compound BPA. When heated, the compound could end up in the milk and affect the nervous system. Although researchers do not agree on the risks, the European Commission has banned the bottles (since 1 March).

“Was that smart,” Fox wonders. “According to a large group of scientists, nothing is wrong. And maybe the alternatives that come on the market will have a much greater degree of uncertainty. The EU commissioner says: ‘Don’t worry, the bottles are safe now.’ Is this a good strategy or are you creating the mere appearance of certainty? It may well be that the bottle manufacturer concerned is doing a better job. They put the current state of affairs about the uncertainty on their website. A good example of acknowledgment.”

It may take some getting used to, the researchers say, but still: “We have to learn to live with uncertainty.”

The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) has listed the 50 most important research questions for the Netherlands. The 50th is the result of a competition, which was won by two UM researchers.

UM-onderzoekers winnen KNAW-prijsvraag

29-9-2011 - Observant

Twee promovendi van de faculteit cultuur- en maatschappijwetenschappen, Marijke Hermans en Tessa Fox, hebben ‘De vijftigste wetenschapsvraag’ gewonnen, een eenmalige prijsvraag van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afgelopen maandag ontvingen ze in het Amsterdamse Trippenhuis een cheque ter waarde van 5000 euro.

De prijsvraag volgt uit de (eerste) Nederlandse Wetenschapsagenda, een lijst van de KNAW met 49 vragen en thema’s waaraan Nederlandse academici een grote bijdrage kunnen leveren. De Akademie riep onderzoekers op om de vijftigste vraag te bedenken. De inzending van Hermans en Fox (begeleid door Marjolein van Asselt) won: Hoe moeten we omgaan met mogelijke risico’s van technologische en wetenschappelijke innovaties?

De twee jonge onderzoekers analyseren complexe risicodossiers zoals de straling bij telefoonmasten of de chemische samenstelling van babyflessen. In beide casussen, waarin de bevolking, wetenschappers en beleidsmakers een hoofdrol spelen, kunnen noch de gevaren noch de veiligheid onomstotelijk worden vastgesteld. De vraag is dan: hoe om te gaan met deze onzekerheid?

——————————————————————————————————-

KNAW-onderzoeksagenda

Leren leven met onzekerheid

29-9-2011 - Observant

De KNAW heeft een agenda samengesteld van 49 belangrijke onderzoeksvragen. Elke week leggen wij een UM-wetenschapper een vraag voor. Deze keer: promovendi Marijke Hermans en Tessa Fox die antwoorden geven op de vraag: Hoe moeten we omgaan met mogelijke risico’s van technologische en wetenschappelijke innovaties?

Straling van zendmasten, de chemische samenstelling van kinderspeelgoed, genetisch gemodificeerd voedsel, ondergrondse opslag van CO2. Allemaal voorbeelden van technologische vernieuwingen die geleid hebben tot maatschappelijke onrust, tot discussies over risico’s en veiligheid.

Beleidsmakers wenden zich dan tot wetenschappers met de vraag: is het een gevaar voor de volksgezondheid, of niet? Maar die moeten het antwoord schuldig blijven, want noch de gevaren noch de veiligheid kunnen onomstotelijk worden vastgesteld. Kortom, hoe moeten we omgaan met deze onzekerheid?

Marijke Hermans en Tessa Fox, twee promovendi van de Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, doen allebei onderzoek hiernaar. Hermans richt zich met name op de maatschappelijke onrust, onder meer bij de installatie van telefoonmasten. Ze bezoekt steden in Vlaanderen en Nederland en praat met bewoners, beleidsmakers, journalisten.

“Eind jaren negentig vond de overheid dat de masten er moesten komen, hoe dan ook. De enige vraag die werd gesteld: zijn ze veilig of niet? Dat de masten niet welkom waren, kon men bevroeden na protesten van omwonenden van bijvoorbeeld kerncentrales. Toch heeft men zich nooit afgevraagd hoe de inspraak van burgers en andere belanghebbenden te regelen. Het is raadzaam om zo’n vraagstuk niet te vernauwen tot een wetenschappelijke kwestie. Betrek er ook andere doelgroepen bij.”

Fox richt zich op de beleidsmakers en hun keuzes, onder meer via de casus van de polycarbonaat babyflesjes met de chemische stof BPA. Bij verhitting zou de stof in de melk kunnen belanden en het zenuwstelsel kunnen aantasten. Hoewel wetenschappers het over de risico’s niet eens zijn, heeft de Europese Commissie de flesjes met BPA toch verboden (sinds 1 maart).

“Is dat slim”, vraagt Fox zich af. “Volgens een grote groep wetenschappers is er niks aan de hand. En misschien komen er alternatieven op de markt waarbij de onzekerheid nog groter is. De EU-commissaris zegt: ‘Maak je geen zorgen, de flesjes zijn nu veilig.’ Is dit een goede strategie of creëer je louter schijnzekerheid? Misschien doet een van de fabrikanten van de bewuste flesjes het beter. Die gaf op de website de actuele stand van zaken over de onzekerheid. Een mooi voorbeeld van de erkenning daarvan.”

Het is misschien wennen, zeggen de onderzoekers, maar toch: “We moeten leren leven met onzekerheid.”

Hoe moeten we omgaan met mogelijke risico’s van technologische en wetenschappelijke innovaties?

Met deze onderzoeksvraag hebben Tessa Fox en Marijke Hermans, twee promovenda bij de faculteit Cultuur en Maatschappijwetenschappen, capgroep Maatschappij, Wetenschap en Techniek (MWT) bij promotor Prof.dr.ir. Marjolein van Asselt, de prijsvraag “De Vijftigste Wetenschapsvraag” van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen gewonnen. Maandag 26 september is de prijs,  een bedrag van € 5000 vrij te besteden aan een wetenschappelijk doel, uitgereikt door Robbert Dijkgraaf, president van de KNAW.

De prijsvraag “De Vijftigste Wetenschapsvraag” maakte deel uit van een oproep van de KNAW aan haar De Jonge Akadamie leden en alumni om een bijdrage te leveren aan de Nederlandse wetenschapsagenda. De agenda is in 2011 voor de eerste keer uitgegeven door de KNAW en bevat 49 uitdagende en prangende internationale wetenschappelijke onderzoeksvragen uit verschillende disciplines.

De KNAW daagde haar leden uit een 50ste vraag te ontwikkelen om de wetenschapsagenda te vervolledigen. De vraag diende betrekking te hebben op een onderzoeksveld waarop grote vooruitgang te verwachten valt en waarop Nederlandse onderzoekers internationaal een toonaangevende rol spelen.

Tessa Fox, Marijke Hermans en Marjolein van Asselt vonden het nodig om de grotendeels disciplinaire vraagstukken in de agenda aan te vullen met een sterke interdisciplinaire vraag die het hart van maatschappelijke controverses raakt. Tessa en Marijke kijken beide in hun promotieonderzoek naar maatschappelijke discussies over complexe risicodossiers. Marijke onderzoekt de onrust bij het plaatsen van masten voor mobiele telefonie. Tessa kijkt naar de manier waarop er binnen beleid door verschillende actoren wordt gekeken naar risicovraagstukken en hoe het vertaald wordt naar beleidsbeslissingen, bijvoorbeeld in het geval van nanotechnologie.

http://www.knaw.nl/Pages/DJA/31/618.bGFuZz1OTA.html

At the latest WTMC Summer School I gave a presentation of my PhD project. Every member has to present once during the time that she attends WTMC. It is a great way to get invaluable feedback on your project, as your audience consists of 30 students mostly with an STS background but also from other disciplines. And of course you also get feedback from the coordinators and the anchor teacher, this time Geoff Bowker.

Here is a summary of my presentation, made by one member to put on the live blog of the WTMC wiki.

Marijke Hermans – Framing public controversies: the dynamics of risk, science and uncertainties in local mast siting controversies

Marijke investigates the public controversy on mobile phone base stations. Sometimes people protest against the base stations from a fear for the devaluation of their property and aesthetical reasons, but most often protests emerge from a fear of risks to human health – often making the comparison to asbestos. Another comparison that protesters love to make is between mobile phones and passive smoking.

Marijke’s project thus focuses on a contemporary technology that has become subject of public controversy. The benefits of that technology are not contested but there are increasing concerns for human health risks. However, in contrast to other technologies, this has not led to a decrease in the sales rates. Even the ones protesting often rely on the same mobile phone technologies to get their message across.

In a nutshell her project aims to understand why the technology became constructed as a health risk. She is interesting in questioning how issues are framed. Secondly, she aims to understand the dynamics that emerge on this framing and the effect it has on those controversies. What happens to science in the public arena? What do her actors mean when talking about science?

Marijke is interested in the ambiguity in risk discourses. On the one hand risk is a political instrument – a means for politicizing certain issues in order to have social problems gain access to the public agenda. On the other hand risk is also a technocratic instrument – politicians decide to resort to science once public concerns are raised, making science the only legitimate actor to provide the answers but also believing science will actually deliver those answers without much trouble. In order to investigate this ambiguity she does six case studies on local protests in the Netherlands and Flanders, using interviews and document analysis with a variety of actors in order to create a thick description.

One early finding is that there is a remarkable consistency throughout the cases that people involved have become experts in their own right. The ‘expertisation’ of lay people, as Marijke nicely calls it. Another early finding relates to psychological studies, that are the bulk of studies on the risks of mobile phone base stations. The deficit model used in those studies could certainly use some STS input, but Marijke’s argument actually is that the question whether people know enough is not the relevant question as there are different constructions and representations of science, uncertainty and evidence. Third, she found that some aspects of the local setting (having nothing to do with science) were very important for how controversies developed. There is quite a heterogeneous mix of factors that all contribute to a local mast siting controversy. A challenge she deals with is to create a link between local and national findings.

see http://www.wtmc.net/wiki/index.php?title=Liveblog_Summer_School_2011

As a PhD student in Science and Technology Studies (STS) at my faculty I am very lucky to have the opportunity to get high quality training in my field, which is provided by the Netherlands Graduate Research School of Science, Technology and Modern Culture (WTMC) – see my Pages for more info on WTMC.

A couple of weeks ago we had the annual Summer School, a full week of training on one major issue that is chaired by a well-known STS scholar. This year Geoffrey Bowker was anchor teacher. Every WTMC workshop is a combination of lectures by STS scholars, plenty of activities (e.g. discussing our own writing, ‘an exemplary dissertation’, discussing core reading, playing a role game or building a value free pasta bridge), and presentations of PhD students. As preparation you have to read a selection of relevant literature.

The theme for this Summer School was Values and Infrastructures at Play, and we discussed about and played with various forms of infrastructures.

Please visit the liveblog we made of the workshop with rich and in-depth descriptions of the lectures. Take a look at the pasta bridges we made!

http://www.wtmc.net/wiki/index.php?title=Liveblog_Summer_School_2011

Here is the introductory text of the workshop:

Infrastructure is multiform and ubiquitous. We live in environments that are laced with infrastructures: roads, trains, power grids and power plants, clinical practice guidelines, sewers, mobile phone networks, wifi hotspots, or water pipes. Infrastructures materially integrate societies, while at the same time they come to symbolise nationhood and even modernity. The British empire was materialised in steam train networks and telegraph lines. The conquest of the American West similarly solidified in train tracks, telegraph roads and later electrification (Nye 1990).

In everyday use, infrastructures often pass unperceived (or unnoticed). We casually rely on the presence of electricity or running water, roads, telephone and the internet. We do not seem to want to see infrastructures: electricity wires are often hidden from view, pipes are behind walls or under floors, and highways or trains need to be kept out of sight and sound behind screens or in tunnels. Communication networks are increasingly wireless and invisible. Railways and roads are repaired at night, so we can use them without worry during the day.

The invisibility of infrastructures is easily justified based on practical concerns like the wish to reduce traffic congestion and inconvenience, but this also leaves out of sight how infrastructures produce certain integrations and exclusions. As Geoffrey Bowker has argued, one founding myth of science is that it is “carried out in an eternal present, from which all external influence has been banished” (Bowker 2005, pg 33), which requires that the affordances and exclusions that for example archives and databases provide for scientific practice are left out of accounts of such practice. As the work of Bowker and others in the field of STS points out, infrastructures such as archives are therefore both sequential as well as jussive (Derrida 1996); they tell scientists what they can and cannot say and users what they can and cannot do. Infrastructures hence become important sites for locating and challenging the values they produce.

Managing Academia

Two colleagues have started a website called Managing Academia where they collect an overview of Internet based tools that can help make academic research and teaching easier, more efficient and fun.

It’s a brilliant initiative, please visit it and give feedback if you have come across other helpful tools.

http://researchmanagingtools.wordpress.com/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.