University of Amsterdam new strategy for the second year of the project

This blog post is a response to Axel’s post asking each partner to rethink their work according to the new strategy discussed in the project meeting back in December. It details the work that the University of Amsterdam will be conducting in this second year of the project.

Over a period of 16 weeks, which started in the first week of February,  the University of Amsterdam will be running the Issue Mapping for Politics course. The course takes students through four different mapping methodologies and theories: controversy mapping in the style of Bruno Latour and Tomasso Venturini, risk cartography using Ulrich Beck’s theories about global risks, critical and neo-cartography using Jeremy Crampton guidelines on the subject, and finally issue mapping techniques developed at the University of Amsterdam.

Students are encouraged to apply these methods and theories on mapping climate change. We are aiming to study climate change controversies through three periods: (1) climate change existence, skepticism and causes, (2) mitigation (personal approach and market approach), and (3) adaptation. This practical part of the course is where the University of Amsterdam will be implementing the new project strategy discussed in December. In each class we are inviting one issue expert: one climate change skepticism expert, one carbon trader, one carbon footprint quant, and one city auditor to talk to students about their work in these areas and about their mapping needs. The students are invited to produce maps and visualisations in response to these discussions with climate change experts. In parallel we will connect with the Guardian Datablog and other media organisations in order to understand mapping needs of yet another important category of users, and aim to collaboratively produce maps and visualisations that are of interest to the Datablog and other publications.

In terms of the project plan and description of work, there is one main change that we anticipate. According to the Gantt chart, in the second year of the project, the main contributions that the University of Amsterdam brings are the release of D1.2 “Recommendations and guidelines for the project” in March, which will consist of the ageing book, now in its final stages of production, and the work under work package 4, “Platform development and community building.” The UvA can include the engagement with expert users and production of climate change maps and visualisations in this work package. In this case, the starting date of the work package, which is now the second half of the year, would need to be changed to February 2013. The outcome of the work will be documented on the EMAPS platform and included in one of the final deliverables, due in the last month of the project.

2 Responses to “University of Amsterdam new strategy for the second year of the project”

  1. Thanks for this post ! As we already said over the phone, what is best suited for EMAPS is the period (3) treated in your course, and the work dealing with data vizualisation in the media sphere (Guardian + other). But of course we’ll be happy to use anything that comes out of your mapping course though !

    Now two questions :

    - Concerning your work on engaging with users, isn’t it more to be included both in WP3 (data collection) and WP4 than only in WP4 ?

    - Concerning the deliverables : all D1 deliverables must be reflexive about the collective process and not contain the visualisation work itself.
    So summarizing the different deliverables :
    - D1.1 -> done
    - D1.2 [Recommendations and guidelines for the project (month 14)] will include the ageing book . The current description is : “Drawing on D1.a framework and on the results of the WP2 test, this document will contain a series of theoretical recommendations and practical guidelines meant to guide the project through all the following phases.”
    So I suggest that, on top of the ageing book (=theoretical recommendations), we include a text about the new decentralized strategy (= practical guidelines) or, better, a draft of Tommaso’s article (if it is available soon !).
    What could the DEADLINE be ?
    - The two other deliverables D1.3 [Evaluation of the platform and finalization of guidelines and recommendation (month 36)] and D1.4 [Scientific Publication about the risks and opportunities in online technoscientific debate (month 36)] need to be better specified because, as I said earlier, they can not report your work in WP3/WP4. I will discuss this with Tommaso tomorrow.

    ++
    Axel

  2. Amsterdam says:

    - Concerning your work on engaging with users, isn’t it more to be included both in WP3 (data collection) and WP4 than only in WP4 ?
    -> We will have datasets indeed which can be included in WP4.

    - Concerning the deliverables :
    - D1.2 So I suggest that, on top of the ageing book (=theoretical recommendations), we include a text about the new decentralized strategy (= practical guidelines) or, better, a draft of Tommaso’s article (if it is available soon !).
    -> Besides the ageing book, to cover the theoretical recommendations requirement we can provide as part of D1.2 a 25 pages theoretical introduction to mapping. Is this ok?

    What could the DEADLINE be ?
    -> We should be able to provide both by 15 March.

    - The two other deliverables D1.3 [Evaluation of the platform and finalization of guidelines and recommendation (month 36)] and D1.4 [Scientific Publication about the risks and opportunities in online technoscientific debate (month 36)] need to be better specified because, as I said earlier, they can not report your work in WP3/WP4. I will discuss this with Tommaso tomorrow.
    -> We would advise to compile all projects related to climate change produced under EMAPS into a book, which might at least in part respond to the requirements for these deliverables. We would be happy to help with work. Let’s discuss it in more detail in our call today.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free