Sketch 1: Peer Review for Clara Fernández
Hi Clara! My question is actually is not derived from your answers per se, I was already thinking about them while answering these questions myself, and now wanted to share them with you hoping that it would also resonate with you.
I wonder how easy it would be for researchers in STS (a field that -as far as I understand so far- tries to avoid imposing logics/big concepts over every-day practices while explaining them, challenges all those traditional over-arching arguments, and has an inclusive approach in general while reconsidering the stakeholders/actants etc.) to admit that for some topics/in some contexts they can also have these tendancies (e.g. being repulsed by the counter example, over generalizing etc.). Or even: Would it really be possible not to have those tendencies at all, or more specificallty not to create new big narratives, logics that would exclude some, that would not be open to all?