Andrew Crabtree

The work of Amartya Sen proved breakthrough in our understanding of disasters by shifting the emphasis from the hazard to societal causes of vulnerability. This chapter begins with an outline of Sen’s work on famines and its relation to the Disaster Risk Reduction literature. It then goes on to outline the capability approach the development of which Sen played a central role. The approach is contrasted with the view of income as development, utilitarianism and Rawls. Thereafter, taking the case of climate change, the chapter criticises Sen for his inattention to sustainability issues. It is argued that instead of seeing development as increasing people’s freedoms to live the lives they value, as Sen does, we should think of sustainable development as increasing legitimate freedoms. Legitimate freedoms are demarcated by drawing on Thomas Scanlon’s version of contractualism and the notion of reasonable rejection. As climate change is with us, it is argued that we are already living in an unsustainable world.

The risks AI presents to society are broadly understood to be manageable through ‘general calculus’, i.e., general frameworks designed to enable those involved in the development of AI to apprehend and manage risk, such as AI impact assessments, ethical frameworks, emerging international standards, and regulations. This paper elaborates how risk is apprehended and managed by a regulator, developer and cyber-security expert. It reveals that risk and risk management is dependent on mundane situated practices not encapsulated in general calculus. Situated practice surfaces ‘iterable epistopics’, revealing how those involved in the development of AI know and subsequently respond to risk and uncover major challenges in their work. The ongoing discovery and elaboration of epistopics of risk in AI (a) furnishes a potential program of interdisciplinary inquiry, (b) provides AI developers with a means of apprehending risk, and (c) informs the ongoing evolution of general calculus.

This chapter outlines some key approaches towards understanding the unremarkable. It focuses first on a sociological orientation to the everyday world as key to the enterprise, and then on a variety of complimentary approaches for elaborating or surfacing the unremarkable character of everyday life. It considers the kinds of data resources that are routinely used to elaborate the unremarkable, and the relationship between data resource and analysis as a constituent element of working ‘in the wild’. We hope this will be a valuable resource for researchers and students alike.

This edited collection opens up new intellectual territories and articulates the ways in which academics are theorising and practicing new forms of research in ‘wild’ contexts. Many researchers are choosing to leave the familiarity of their laboratory-based settings in order to pursue in-situ studies ‘in the wild’ that can help them to better understand the implications of their work in real-world settings. This has naturally led to ethical, philosophical and practical reappraisals with regard to the taken for granted lab-based modus operandi of scientific, cultural and design-based ways of working. This evolving movement has led to a series of critical debates opening up around the nature of research in the wild, but up until now these debates have not been drawn together in a coherent way that could be useful in an academic context. The book brings together applied, methodological and theoretical perspectives relating to this subject area, and provides a platform and a source of reference material for researchers, students and academics to base their work on. Cutting across multiple disciplines relating to philosophy, sociology, ethnography, design, human–computer interaction, science, history and critical theory, this timely collection appeals to a broad range of academics in varying fields of research.

Although the capability approach has had a tremendous impact on the development debate, it has had little to say about sustainable development. As several Human Development Reports have maintained, the last twenty years' gains in human development are not sustainable. The failure to include an integrate sustainability into the Human Development Index would thus give the wrong policy message. Drawing on the works of Amartya Sen and Thomas Scanlon, this article argues that sustainable development can be seen as a process of increasing legitimate freedoms, the freedoms that others cannot reasonably reject. Thus, Sen's vision of development as freedom is amended to suggest limits to freedoms. Forms of development which are not sustainable can be reasonably rejected due, at least, to the harm and blighting entailed. Based on this, it is argued that at country level of comparison the Human Development Index should be combined with the Ecological Footprint to reflect sustainability, and that the Human Development Reports should give way to Sustainable Development Reports.