Quick thoughts that have been bugging me about the role of Twitter in #USSstrike #NoDetriment (sorry this is a t****d) 1/
no question from me about the positive elements, in that the live digging into historical documents about the genesis of this dispute from employers' side has been incredibly enlightening (bravo @felicitycallard @etymologic etc)
however, I am concerned about one possible effect of this, that Twitter serves up a worldview to workers that they have all the facts on their side. This is reinforced by i) filter bubbles and ii) mainly public silence from tPR, USS, UUK.
why does this matter? Because it interacts with the central ingredient of the current proposal - the "jointly appointed expert panel". The idea, floated early on, that a new panel of experts would provide the key to unlocking this dispute should ring alarm bells... 4/
..for anyone familiar with #STS or sociology of expertise. We will be in a 'war of expertise' between two opposing teams which quite conceivably could reach a deadlock with no casting vote (thereby opening up a reversal to prev JNC decision) 5/
Latour once said science is "politics by other means". Update this for the new #USSstrike expert panel: "actuarial science is politics by other means". As with any consensus-building, there will be a *lot* of wrangling about ToR, assumptions which are not objectively scientific
Don't get me wrong, this might be preferable to the current trajectory (particularly if you don't have much faith in our leaders). However, the same dispute is being shifted from an overtly political location (UCU-UUK) to a more fuzzily defined one (expert group). 7/
Do not be deceived that the expert panel will ove this dispute from ugly politics to objective science - it merely changes the dynamics. Which is why we need to be *very* clear about what we are getting to before thinking about accepting this proposal. 8/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
