Terrorism Historical Database GIS Project - Final Report

2012-09-19

Terrorism Database GIS Project
- Final Report -

by René Brauer

Project start:      09/2011
Project end:       09/2012
Work hours:       96 h

Note: The project was initially thought only to last 3 months; however halfway through the project Fridlund and Brauer started an individual separate course in Science and Technology Studies together. In order to avoid conflict of interested it was decided to postpone the project. The remaining time of the project was utilized sporadically in the year 2012.  

Objectives:

·         Exploring GIS analytical possibilities for historical study of terrorism.

·         Exploring Similar GIS approaches to other historical subjects.

·         Exploring the possibilities of interactive GIS

The basic idea behind the project is the realization that every action is happening at a defined point in time and place and that no action occurs without context. An example of context to the spatiality of terrorist attacks is given by Fridlund (2012)[1] when he writes: “…when Russian idealists discovered the potential for a new form of revolutionary propaganda afforded by small and powerful revolvers.” (Fridlund 2012: 7). This action of ‘discovering’ implies a temporal dimension; dividing a timeline into before the discovery and after. Furthermore it also implies that the ‘discovery’ was transferred to fellow revolutionists, implying a spatial process. These pattern underlying terrorist attacks are difficult to map, since they are so far not well documented, because they are often regarded as criminal activity. By mapping the actual terrorist attacks themselves the project aimed at creating a proxy variable, for the spread of terrorism techniques. In order to analyze the temporal inception and tempo-spatial diffusion of techniques used for assassination by terrorist groups. Utilizing geographical analysis with Geographical Information System (GIS), which are computer aided mapping and analyzing tools.

Spatial Analysis of 19^th century Terrorism

Any geographical analysis requires data to analyze; in this case no such geographical data existed in ready analyzable format. Therefore a large part of the project was spent on putting together a database; compiling data into a standardized usable format from different data sources. These data sources varied greatly in their format, ranging from already existing databases, to mentioning’s in books, on internet sites, newspaper clippings etc., varying greatly in amount of data quality.

A great difficulty for the project was the definition of its categories, for example the outcome of a terrorist attack was divided into three different possibilities: fulfilled, failed or foiled. Nevertheless even these three simple categories proved difficult to determine in cases, because if the aim of the terrorist attack was to frighten the target and not kill, than the attack was a success even if the target wasn’t killed. However this presupposes knowledge about the aim of the terrorist’s, this knowledge was in most cases not available. Furthermore if the terrorist attack was foiled, what location should be given, the location of the apprehension or if available the location for the planned attack. These are just a few examples of the difficulties involved in classifying the terrorist attacks, nevertheless most of these were solved by some means or another leading to creation of database including 104 separate terrorist attacks evenly spaced throughout the 19^th century. The categories and the subsequent information that the database provided consisted of the following categories:

·         Date                        - date of the terrorist attack

·         Location                 - location of the terrorist attack

·         Perpetrator              - individual who conducted the attack

·         Title of the Target   - if available, royal title or political office  

·         Target                     - name of the victim

·         Method                   - specification over what kind of method

·         Outcome                 - success, failure or apprehension of the attack

Based on the established database general trends were recognized. However the generality of these trends is highly questionable due to the quality of the data.  For example sometimes the only mentioning of method in an information source was: “shot” revealing no information by what method other than some type of firearm. Therefore many entries had to be omitted, leading to only 32 data entries usable for a method analyses (out of a total of 106). Figure 1 shows one type of analyzes that was created from the data material, namely the cumulative occurrence of terrorist attacks utilizing revolvers or other types of weapons. 

Figure 1 crosses (x) represent ‘other types of methods’ while plus signs (+) represent ‘revolvers’

As seen in Figure 1 the usage of revolvers drastically increased around 1880 completely dominating all other methods. However regarding the small sample size of 32 cases it is difficult to assess if this is a general trend or only valid for this particular dataset of 32 of 106 (for this study) known and an unknown total of all terrorist attack in the 19^th century.

Therefore the conclusion of the project is that it is intrinsically possible to do this type of analyze possible yielding new insights into the study of historical terrorism. However the limited timeframe for the project did not allow for the creation of a larger sample size that is necessary to generalize any sort of result. 

Possibilities to extend data quality

One idea that was tested in the scope of the project to get around the problem of too few data points was to ‘crowd source’ the problem. I.E. creating a public accessible platform where users would be enrolled in contributing in compiling information for the researcher effectively outsourcing the largest part of the research project, data gathering. As a pilot test a trial was conducted data mining the London Times online newspaper archive. The time span for the search defined itself to the 19^th century (1800 – 1900), a search for the keyword ‘murder’ revealed 56 257 articles mentioning ‘murder’ in some form or another. Overwhelmed with this plethora of data a pilot-test was conducted randomly selecting 20 articles and trying to compile their data.  The 20 selected articles were used to create the same data points as mentioned above; date, location etc. The result of this trial was that the London Times as a single data source was not enough to provide all the necessary information to compile the needed data. Further research showed that the data was often available from other sources, libraries, articles websites etc. However this drastically increased the difficulty in the compilation process making it far too complicated for a simple user interface. Furthermore the data itself faced the same problems of ambiguity as the terrorist data explained above, creating possible difficulties in the description. Therefore the collection method might be suitable for a PhD research project, but not for a crowd sourcing project as it presents far too many complexities to one particular user. 

Similar projects, software’s and conclusion of the project

Several GIS approaches have made their way into historical studies, creating se so called subfield of Historical GIS (HGIS). Examples of this kind of study are inquiries about the Salem Witch Trials[2], Battle of Gettysburg[3] and the steel industry of Pennsylvania[4].

Salem Witch Trials:       Reexamination of the trials by mapping the occurrences and the households brought into questions the previously assumed hypothesis about an east west separation. Furthermore analysis on regional scale showed the viral like spread of trials throughout the surrounding areas

Battle of Gettysburg:     The creation of a viewshed (possible points of view) from General Lee´s position revealed that he was unable to physically see the battle firsthand. Therefore he had to rely on second hand information possibly influencing the outcome negatively for the confederate troops.

Pennsylvania iron smelting:        Previous assumptions about the rationality for adopting continental smelting methods due to their superiority of production were called into question. Based on comparisons of actual production data between charcoal and fossil coal, and based on analysis of the locations of the mills and the furnaces.

The main software used behind most of HGIS project represents ArcGis[5], as it is one of the largest GIS software providers. However open source alternatives exist such as TimeMap[6] and QuantumGIS[7] (QGIS). Both are desktop type GIS software’s and very suitable for light type of spatial analysis required for the purpose described here. Quantum GIS may represent the more attractive software option. Firstly it had the possibilities for GRASS[8] plug-ins, opening the possibility for advanced GIS analysis if need. Secondly QGIS has a large community, ensuring continuously updating and problem solving of possible software bugs. Finally QGIS is an Open Source engine also employing Open Source data formats that are compatible with most online services for further online usage of the data.  

The possibility to display the collected data in open source format available for the public was deemed highly possible from the information gathered. Projects like Pelagios[9] specialize in sharing historical humanities research data and making it available, all using Open License data formats. Google Earth[10] allows for similar possibilities and has the advantage of being widely known, however Goggle uses its own data format possibly creating compatibility and licensing issues. Therefore the choice of which online platform to use to make the data available is highly depended on what intentions the creator has with the data. If the only goal is to visualize the data and make this visualization available Goggle Earth is the perfect platform, however if also the core data should be able available for further analysis by third parties Goggle might not be the perfect option.   

The overarching lesson learned from this project:

This type of GIS analysis and distribution is potentially possible, however due to the novelty of this approach large amount of time has to be spend on data collection, analysis and preparing the data before any kind of general results or possible publication can be achieved.

---

[1] Fridlund, Mats (2012) Affording terrorism: Idealists and materialities in the emergence of modern terrorism, in Terrorism and affordance. ed. Max Taylor & P.M. Currie, London, Continuum

[2] http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/salem/maps.html

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/27/arts/spatial-maps.html

[4] Knowles, A.K and Healy, R. G. (2006). Geography, Timing, and Technology: A GIS-Based Analysis of Pennsylvania's Iron Industry, 1825-1875, Journal of Economic History Vol. 66. Is. p. 608

[5] http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis

[6] http://www.timemap.net/

[7] http://www.qgis.org/

[8] http://grass.fbk.eu/

[9] http://pelagios-project.blogspot.se/

[10] http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

Sane in an Insane world?

2011-05-03

I remember the 9/11 attacks vividly like many of us, one horror that was shocking was the images of Palestine’s and other people in the Middle East celebrating. Instead of turning away and labeling them as lunatics I asked myself why these people celebrate? The answer is more complex as I have time to outline here, but let’s just be content in saying that it has to do with the injustice experienced by them at the hand of the masters (previous, Britain, France and now the USA, Israel and all its proxy states). They wanted revenge; they wanted to let the safe people in the West feel the pain they suffered, so they celebrated the barbaric act of violence that happened on September 11 2001.

Almost ten years later we stand here today and read in the newspaper that the 'mastermind' behind the attacks, Usama bin Laden, has been killed. In an operation in Pakistan by US special Forces. And once again people are celebrating. In the words of our leaders: “A world without Usama is a better world”, Fredrik Reinfeldt or even better in the words of Obama “Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans … they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."he failed to mention that a couple of other people were killed as well. But let’s once again ask the question why.

Usama, if the claims are correct, planed and organized attacks that killed people in a different country in retaliation against crimes committed by an enemy. ‘We’ planned and executed a mission that killed people in a different country in retaliation against crimes committed by an enemy. And now just like the people in the Middle East ten years ago, we celebrate. Am I the only one who sees the circularity in this way of reasoning?

Yes these two attacks are not comparable in scale, but the rationale behind them is the same. And to be fair many more people have died and suffered by our hands, than by the hands of the ‘terrorists’. Terrorist again is a word that dehumanizes the enemy, making it OK to kill them like animals. Usama bin Laden should have be brought to justice for the crimes he committed. By resolving the conflict like this, we do not prove our superiority in civilization, but only in power while we stupidly go down to the level of resolving conflicts with fist and not reason. If we really want people to start believing in us again; we have to bring to justice the people on ‘our’ side as well. Why not start with Bush and Cheney for a start?

If we not do this, we once again give the same old message to the world. Crimes against us are not OK, but crimes by us against you are OK….

Primum non nocere

2010-05-25

“Primum non nocere” is the medical doctrine that every practitioner of medicine should abide by, it means first of all do no harm. It is a very powerful and noble principle and for all intended purposes it is a moral guideline that we should try to live by as much as possible. 

Having said that, it has become painful obvious to me that the doctrine of do no harm cannot be the only moral doctrine a perfect society is founded upon. Freedom as such has the same connotations, in being that it directly appeals to something deep within us. Most people that experienced slavery in some form wish for freedom of their own actions. 

But freedom of actions is exactly the cause of harm. Because I can envision what I would call a benevolent dictatorship where all people are keep in separate cells to protect them from each other. The principle of do no harm would be abided to the fullest, every individual would not lack anything. Ample food, comfort, shelter, entertainment etc would be provided. Even so the fact that it is a dictatorship and we have no right in it seems to the modern mind depressing. So as sad as it may seem I have to say that do no harm cannot be the only morale principle that one bases its action upon. 

This means in no way it s useless; the analogy to physics comes to mind. Where Newton’s laws of gravity work fine for all that we human need to do in our every day to day live. But when we try to push these laws to their limits, cracks start to appear and we have to turn to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. As a doctrine in how to treat your friends, loved ones and everyone around you do no harm is a noble doctrine to follow, but as a basis of a perfect society it seems to break down (as least if it’s the only one). 

Why should we care?

2010-05-21

During my time in Jamaica, I spend a lot of time reflecting on the apparent homophobia that Jamaican culture expressed. The most fundamental articulated reasons I heard for this fear was the apparent believe of a moral decay that would follow once we allow homosexuality. 

Meaning that homosexuality in itself is not bad, but if you allow for this slightly “immoral” action that does not hurt anyone. Than worse would also follow, like pedophilia or bestiality for example. First of all I do not believe this is true, because there are no connection between these issues what so ever. They are sexual preferences, but just because I like food doesn't mean I would like to test everything!!! 

Anyway this is a fundamental issue that has to be sorted out and hopefully will. But what struck me even more than the homophobia was the question I was asked. Why do I care? I am not gay, so why should I care about gay rights. This question has bothered me ever since, because I didn't had a good answer to it at the time. 

Apart from the empathy to my fellow humans and not wanting to see them mistreated and marginalized. I just thought of a reason why you should care. But instead of me explaining it I think this poem captures it better than anything. 

"FIRST THEY CAME for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up." 

It’s a poem of the Pastor Martin Niemöller to explain why the evil that happened in Nazi Germany could have happened. I think it captures the reason behind why we should care so superb, if its not out of empathy, than do it out of self interest. 

Is Everyone Equal?

2010-03-11

No, there are vast differences between human beings, height, intellect, temper, strength and so on, so we are not equal in that sense. But we have to treat everyone equal because the alternative is worse. So in a sense if we treat everyone equal, everyone is equal. This is by no means a proof that everyone is equal or consistent, quite to the contrary. Modern science has shown that our physiology is far more fluent then previously assumed. People with permanent brain damage have regained functions thought forever lost. So the human brain and body has an incredible potential of recovery and too break limits, set by us.

What this means is that every human being has an immeasurable potential hidden inside, even so most of us do not utilize this. By now treating people differently on a basis of their current abilities, behaviour or whatever, we deny those individuals the possibility to utilize these potentials, so the basis of treating people equal is not on the basis of actual phenomena that these people exhibit, but rather because denial of this would inhibit freedom of each and every individual. 

Freedom in this sense is in no means only bound to positive actions. Freedom in itself means the right to do everything, including hurting other people for example. This is where political theory comes in to control the actions of individuals to ensure that the individual freedom do not infringe on other peoples freedom. I mean political theory in the broadest sense, the ensuring of social cohesion by whatever means. So now we have two opposing premises individual freedom and the greater good. These are by no way mutually exclusive, but they can be in particular cases. 

In particular situations where the individual freedom infringes on the greater good, it is morally permissible to restrict an individual’s personal freedom. I am referring to cases of murder or other actions that do harm. However this is by no means a doctrine that is to be followed in each and every case, like the utilitarian doctrine says. I much rather think that each and every situation has to be judged individually. If by that we cannot reach a coherent political theory, then so be it. I do not believe that such coherent political theory is out of reach, but I do suppose that it is far different from most of the current political or moral theories. This is founded in a scientific materialism and the evolutionary background of our existence. 

Human beings have, I believe, an inherent moral code. A moral standard that is common to our species, this moral code is evolved during the course of our evolution. Pre modern man, when he lived in the plains of Africa survived by cooperation. This is self evident if we compare our physiology to other animals that lived at the same time. We for an example are not as fast as a predator, we do not have a highly evolved sense of smell, our eyes are very sharp but compared to these of an hawk, they lose out. In general can we say that in all our physical abilities we are inferior to animals.

But how do we explain the success of the human species than? There are a few things in what humans are superior to animals, one of these is cooperation. In order for cooperation to succeed there has to be certain rules of conduct that must be followed. These are different to what task is to be achieved. 

But cooperation alone is not sufficient to be an explanation to our success, because some social insects beat us easy with the level of cooperation between its individuals.

So what it is that makes us special? We have language and the ability to learn. Why learning is important is almost self-evident, because it allows us to recreate actions in numerous occasions in the future that will be beneficiary to us then. 

Language on the other hand is something, at least to the extent that humans have it, something unique in the animal kingdom. Language allows us to convey difficult pieces of information in a short an intelligible way. It is easy to see the benefits when we put it in particular situations, humans are not only able to warn other humans of danger, we can specify the kind of danger, thereby increasing the ability to deal with the upcoming danger. 

How is this, now connected to our moral and politics philosophies and that all humans should be treated equal? 

Since I presume the basis of our moral judgment to be in our evolutionary past, I assume that our moral values are based on handling situations in these surrounding. Cooperation had proved beneficial for the survival of humans, so they adjusted to function in groups. This adjusting is what lays the foundation for our moral standards. 

The problem now arises when we get faced with modern situations to these old moral values. I believe that the moral standards are capable to handle these new circumstances, because they have survived so far so there is nothing that speaks against them not being able to handle the new situations. But I do believe the reasoning of the moral standards to be different from what we think they are, since they are not based on logical thinking, but merely an evolutionary process. This means not that they are illogical or inferior; it just means they arose differently. 

So if we want to build a society which is desirable by all human beings, we have to take the origin of our moral values in consideration and how they relate to the modern problems we get faced daily. So I believe a synthesis of our moral values, logical reasoning and individual freedom is what is makes the foundation for this future. 

(Note: I take the greater good synonymous with what is evolutionary best for our species.)

Treating all people equal is a perfect example of this synthesis of our natural moral values, logical reasoning and individual freedom.

// Kuma

Avatar; the new Movie form James Cameron

2009-12--22

Yesterday I watched James Cameron´s new movie Avatar. Despite being a great movie that I really enjoyed it got me thinking. First of all I couldn’t come up with any other movie where the humans were portrait as the antagonists. This in itself was a revelation for me, because in this movie this is clearly the case. Nobody in the movie theater seemed to object to this notion. So this in some way means humanity is not confined to humans alone, because in this movie the humane thing to do was clearly to side with the aliens NOT the humans. 

Secondly one quote in the movie struck me as noteworthy. The director of the human operation in Pandora tells the leading scientist that she should come up with the solution for the indigenous population problem, otherwise he will send in the cavalry. His words were: "Bad press is bad, but one thing stock holders like even less than bad press is bad returns at the end of the fiscal year."

This is in my opinion what really captured the spirit of the movie, big business vs. humanity and common reason. The choice should be an easy choice, because the survival and well being of our species (and that of others) should take top priority. But it’s not! Copenhagen’s climate conference clearly showed this once and again. So I ask the question, why is it that every human seems to understand this (which clearly was shown by the audiences acceptance) but in practice it is so hard to accomplish?

//Kuma

Probably the best word in the world

2009-10-05

From "Monty Python"

Perhaps one of the most interesting words in the English language today, is the word fuck. Out of all the English words that begin with the letter 'f' ...fuck is the only word referred to as 'the f word... It's the one magical word. Just by its sound can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love. Fuck, as most words in the English language is derived from German ...the word fuieken, which means to strike.
In English, fuck falls into many grammatical categories:

As a transitive verb for instance ...John fucked Shirley.
As an intransitive verb...Shirley fucks.

Its meaning is not always sexual, it can be used as...

An adjective such as ...John's doing all the fucking work.
As part of an adverb ...Shirley talks too fucking much.
As an adverb enhancing an adjective ...Shirley is fucking beautiful.
As a noun ...I don't give a fuck.
As part of a word ...absofuckinglutely -or- infuckingcredible.
And as almost every word in a sentence ...Fuck the fucking fuckers.

As you must realize, there aren't too many words with the versatility of fuck...such as these examples describing situations such as:

Fraud ...I got fucked at the used car lot.
Dismay ...ahhh fuck it.
Trouble ...I guess I'm really fucked now.
Aggression ...Don't fuck with me buddy.
Difficulty ...I don't understand this fucking question.
Inquiry ...Who the fuck was that?
Dissatisfaction ...I don't like what the fuck is going on here.
Incompetence ...He's a fuck...

Biological Relativism

2012-08-01

I don´t know if this a new concept or not. If it is than I would like to introduce it as a new term of biological relativism. Relativism has many different shades and forms, but most commonly is associated with the denial of absolute truth and subjective interpretations depending on such entities like language or culture (cultural relativism).

The greatest criticism of relativism is always been that with this stance no definite point of view can be taken, since it’s a logical impossibility. This is depicted in the contradiction of the argument “All views are relative”, if it’s true than the argument is self refuting, because it makes a universal statement. In an absolute logical sense this might be true, but I feel for an everyday use of reason, relativism provides a good standpoint for thought, since it urges one to question one’s own assumptions.  

How about this absolute logical sense than? Relativism states that there is no absolute truth that can be attained by humans. This I am willing to grant, but this does not mean that its fundamental assumptions are negotiable. I believe it is instructive to see it from a biological point of view (hence the name). Evolution primed us with tools to coexist, presuming man as herd animal which is strongly supported by science and literature. These tools are the physical shape of our hands, our eyes and other physical entities of our body, however also our emotional, social and logical capacities stem from the same evolutionary background. Therefore our moral principles that guide our moral behavior are founded in our evolutionary past, as they seemed most beneficial for the survival of the group. A moral principle like “the golden rule” makes sense out of an evolutionary point of view to ensure group survival and peace in the group.

I am not suggesting that the golden rule is an evolutionary meme, or what you would like to call it. For this it is far too specific. I believe our moral principles are general notions like; avoid pain, eat when hungry, sexual urge etc. creating moral lego blocks that can be combined into different structures. Therefore the term relativism is very appropriate, because the amount of possible combination of these entities is endless. Even these in themselves have different weights of importance, for example it is easily observable that in male dogs the sexual urge dominates the urge for food. This is seen when male dogs refuse to eat when a female dog, in heat, is nearby. I am not suggesting that we are dogs or that humans are this simple. I rather see biological relativism as a bottom up approach to morality. From what science has shown us, nature works like this too, atoms build molecules, molecules build proteins, proteins build tissue etc. every time there is an increase in complexity, creating unlimited possible outcomes. However this does not mean that all rules associated with this process are negotiable or random (relative for a moral sense), atoms can only combine in a certain way to form molecules, proteins need favorable conditions to form and be sustained etc. Therefore I believe the same applies for moral principlesl, there are rules that are not negotiable how these ‘lego blocks’ of morality can be combined. Making it biological relativism as a morality not random or arbitrary but rather a complex evoling structure. We can never know the shape of what it will take, but we can understand the process how it is formed.

A brief look at the Social Influences on Material Things and vice versa

2011-12-13

In this paper I sketch an attempt to address the interconnectedness of the social aspect of human reality with the materiality of the external world and vice versa. With the help of four articles [1] taken from the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) I will try to exemplify these influences. There was no special screen process why I selected just these four articles; I merely deemed them to be good examples to illustrate the case I am trying to sketch. Clearly other articles could have been selected, but the social and the material sphere are vast subjects and highly ambiguous, forests of paper have been spent to just define the one or the other, let alone to combine the two. So let this be my humble attempt to do just this.

Defining Social

The theme of imprecise concepts continues right to our first definition. The concept of social is very ambiguous. A Marxist usually defines the social as being the sum of class interest and belonging into a political sphere. This rather narrow definition has been challenged to include group actions, community actions, and collective knowledge and believes. In total all these are referring to some sort of human to human interaction (excluding other animals) [2]. For the moment let’s be content with this and move on to the next definition.       

Material Things

Material things as the name implies are made up of materials, matter so to speak. To not complicate it further lets avoid the traditional distinction between natural and cultural things [3] and be content that things made up of matter are things. Also that both living and dead can both occupy the category of things. This implies that humans have no special status and can be regarded as things as well, even if humans are indeed strange things. Furthermore all things occupy space, are visible and touchable [4]. Each thing has a monopoly on the space it is occupying, where one thing exist no other thing can be [5]. According to Hägerstrand [6] the physical world is characterized by having no gaps, he calls this concept:”bredvidvarandhet [7]” meaning that next to each thing there is another thing occupying that space, reality is continuous without gaps.  In this epistemology, space becomes the sum of everything that is entailed within in it [8]. To summarize, things are everything that is touchable, visible and will occupy space, while space is just the sum of all things. Next let’s turn to how the material things are interacting with the social in two distinct cases.

Things influencing the Social

Collins [9] gives an account (1) of the propagation of the TEA laser (Transversely Excited Atmospheric Pressure CO2 laser) technology from America to Britain. His main point in the article is that this propagation requires more than just written sources.  He invokes the notion of tacit knowledge, necessary to be able to recreate the technology on a different location. He states that he is not aware of anyone producing a working TEA laser using written sources only [10]. But it is not for this purpose I introduced this article, I want to call attention to the interviews that get mentioned during the article. Collins quotes employs at smaller laboratories saying that they have to be careful in what knowledge they share and what not, in order to avoiding loss of expertise. The reason given is a lack of resources or inability to compete with larger laboratories [11] working on the same problem.  Such tactics included answering truthful to questions, but not volunteering information, that is not explicitly asked for. In this fashion they retain their air of openness, while still not revealing vital information [12].  Even if this particular case involved technical expertise, Collins is quite confident that one could generalize his finding to scientific community, since they operate within the same principles [13].

This seems in stark contrast to the ideal of Communism, introduced by Merton, which states that scientific knowledge should be a public good. Accessible to everyone and not kept secret from the public or other researchers [14]. So the question arises why this wide gap to the Mertonian ideal? The next article (2) may seem closer to this Mertonian ideal. It deals with the introduction of Drosophila as a standard organism for the study of genetic differences [15]. These ideals exemplified themselves in sharing of instrumentation in the parent laboratory as well as ideas. Furthermore the initial group would send cultures of Drosophila to anyone that asked for them and was deemed qualified enough, free of charge [16]. The only thing that was expected was to report back how the experiments were progressing, by this extending the community [17]. Credit was giving to the person first materialising the result, not for the person who had the initial idea [18], making it an almost perfect Mertonian case. This built a network of trust that allowed information to freely flow between the different practitioners, violations were held in check by social convention, and no negative sanction ever had to be utilized [19].

So what was the difference between the TEA laser and the Drosophila case? The head director Morgan is quoted by saying:”that we can claim no special virtue here, for Drosophila is like the air we breathe - there is enough for all [20]"  So it seems to be the physical property of the material they were studying that allowed for this generous interaction with colleagues. Several times throughout the Drosophila article it is mentioned what sheer abundance of data was produced by breeding Drosophila [21]. In the face of this one has to ask oneself, is it conceivably to make the argument that the physical properties of the surroundings in some way determined the social outcome of the group interaction? I think with further research just such an argument could be made.   

Social impact on the Material

The studied article (3) is about Sweden’s neutrality during the cold war and how this neutrality exemplified itself materially [22]. The author sketches the argument that by looking at the material account of Sweden’s military defence, the sincerity of this neutrality can be put to question. He argues that the Cold War set the tone for the time and in this climate Sweden had to choose [23], which officially it took the stance of neutrality but in reality it allied itself with the west and the material account shows this. He starts to explain that the initial position to Sweden’s neutrality by the US and Britain was looked down upon, but this changed over time, because: “ord också måste omvandlades till handling, politiken måste implementeras [24]” so the actions  Sweden chose signalled to the western powers that Sweden was willing to at least unofficially allay itself with this west. This led to a closer cooperation between the Sweden and the NATO powers. This exemplified itself by Sweden building airfields large enough to accommodate NATO bombers, standardizing fuelling stations to NATO standard tank pressures, implementing NATO radio and radar standards and the establishment of a telephone line directly to the US-headquarter in Wiesbaden [25]. This again led to an even tighter cooperation between Sweden and NATO, were Sweden could buy military technology and weapons from the US and Britain [26]. 

The next studied article (4) deals with Swedish enterprise of gypsum mining on Svalbard archipelago, to be more precise on Spitsbergen. The aim of the article is to show how the extra judicial status of the island in the early 20th century as a no-man’s land exemplified itself in the physical landscape [27]. Seen by itself the gypsum mining may even be regarded as irrational, none of the mined gypsum was ever shipped back to Sweden. Because this was not the main purpose of the enterprise, the main purpose was that the mined gypsum should be visible to signal to other parties that the area was under Swedish occupation [28]. Furthermore the location chosen for gypsum mining had mothering to do with the availability of gypsum, because this was available in abundance at much easier to access location. But rather because they represented strategic points for a future coal mining endeavour [29]. One has to see these actions in a larger framework: as physical signs in the landscape to secure property ownership against competing factions for a future coal mining endeavour, than they start to make sense [30].      

These two accounts are just a few samples to show how the social can and will express itself physical. Social differences will take different physical expression.  In the neutrality case of Sweden, a true adherence to neutrality would have presumably looked very different. And in the Svalbard case, without considering the social or international rules regarding the island, the actions would seem irrational.

False Dichotomy

I deliberately choose to present the influences of physical on social and vice versa. Traditionally there is a standard in social research to treat the physical as trivial [31] and in the nature science to treat the social science as something of lesser quality than the nature science. Meaning that nature is truth and social is just opinion, two complete separate spheres [32]. To make it extra clear to show that one is influencing the other and vice versa, I chosen to represent it in this artificial way. But the truth of the matter is that this neat distinction is an illusion. In the articles the representations are in fact cyclic, having the social influencing the material, which in turn influences the social again and vice versa. In the case of Svalbard, one of the reasons why the Swedish influence ended is because of a large scale fire in nearby Swedish coalmine. The physical coast of repairing the damage combined with the loosing social struggle against the rival Scottish company led the Swedish company to cancel the mining operation [33]. So it is not one that is just influencing the other, it is ever changing interaction and co-action that is happening. 

In a famous STS study by Michel Callon, he describes the interactions of non-human and human actors [34]. Even in the classic of Latour’s Centre of Calculation [35] the information has to physically get back from the periphery to the centre to be usable, so the physical is highly important. Hägerstrand goes one step further and builds up an epistemology, where the physical and the social together make up an ever recreating evolutionary filter for what will and can happen next [36].

So what now?

Hopefully it is clear to be able to understand these complex interwoven processes it is necessary to have a discipline that can handle trans-disciplinary character necessary to handle these processes. Hägerstrand talks about an ”all-ekologi [37 ]"  to be able to understand the complex interacting processes of the world. Traditionally scientific disciplines are more focused on dissecting and specialising therefore they are not suitable for such task. To be able have a holistic understanding such a discipline must be able to encompass a holistic approach. He also admits that currently no such discipline exist [38].

I would suggest geography could be a possibility for such a discipline, since it already is addressing trans-disciplinary issues. It could serve as platform on which could be built upon to be able to encompass the different stages necessary to be able to grasp such a understanding necessary to explain these processes. One example could be the super imposing of Gieryn’s cultural cartography [39] with Hägerstrand’s “tillvaroväv [40]". To be able to have an all encompassing space in which the individual has to navigate within. This would highlight the fact that it is the combination of the social and the physical that together are constraining and enabling the actor’s actions.  

Notes:

[1] (1) The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks (1974) – H. M. Collins; (2)Moral Economy, Material Culture, and Community in Drosophila Genetics (1998) – Robert E. Kohler both in: the Science Studies reader (1999) – (ed.) Mario Biagioli; (3)Neutralitetens materialitet (2003) – Hans Weinberger; (4) Aktanter i ingenmanslandet (2003) – Dag Avango both in: Industrins Avtryck(2003) – (red) Dag Avango & Brita Lundström

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/#4 taken on the 2011-12-12, last edited 2006-08-18

[3] Tillvaroväven (2009) – Torsten Hägerstrand, p. 76

[4] Hägerstrand (2009), p. 81

[5] Hägerstrand  (2009), p. 84

[6] Hägerstrand (2009), p. 57

[7] Hägerstrand (2009), p. 57 ”bredvidvarandhet” is a Swedish word made up by Hägerstrand himself, to roughly translate it means something like: “next-to-each-otherness”

[8] Hägerstrand (2009), p. 81

[9] The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks (1974) – H. M. Collins

[10] Collins (1974), p. 102

[11] Collins (1974), p. 104

[12] Collins (1974), p. 104

[13] Collins (1974), p. 106

[14] The Normative Structure of Science (1942) – Robert K. Merton, pp. 273-275

[15] Moral Economy, Material Culture, and Community in Drosophila Genetics (1998) – Robert E. Kohler

[16] Kohler (1998), p. 249

[17] Kohler (1998), p. 253

[18] Kohler (1998), p. 250

[19] Kohler (1998), p. 251

[20] Kohler (1998), p. 254

[21] Kohler (1998), pp. 246, 251 & 254

[22] Neutralitetens materialitet (2003) – Hans Weinberger

[23] Weinberger (2003), pp. 252 – 253

[24] Weinberger (2003), pp. 253 – 254 a rough translation would be:”words have to be put into actions, politics have to be implemented”

[25] Weinberger (2003), pp. 256 – 259

[26] Weinberger (2003), pp. 264 – 265

[27] Aktanter i ingenmanslandet (2003) – Dag Avango

[28] Avango (2003), pp. 181 – 183

[29] Avango (2003), pp. 196 – 197

[30] Avango (2003), p. 177

[31] Hägerstrand (2009) p. 10

[32] Cultural Boundaries of Science (1999) – Thomas F. Gieryn, pp. 343 – 344

[33] Avango (2003), p. 192

[34] Domestication of Scallops and the Fisherman of St Brieuc Bay (1999) – Michel Callon

[35] Science in Action (1987) – Bruno Latour

[36] Hägerstrand (2009), pp 64 – 65

[37] Hägerstrand (2009), p. 19 once again a term introduced by Hägerstrand a direct translation would be: ”all-ecology”

[38] Hägerstrand (2009), p 24

[39] Gieryn (1999)

[40] Hägerstrand (2009)