Pub Date : 2023-06-13DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2221304
Silvan Pollozek, Jan-H. Passoth
ABSTRACT Data infrastructures for the Frontex joint operations are often only temporary and thus in need of being built up and removed easily, adjustable to changing constellations of security actors, and adaptable to new situations. They need to work through flaws, gaps, and inconsistencies. Still, they fabricate data used for the re-identification of migrants, police investigations, situational pictures, or risk analysis and lead to the intensification of security practices of Frontex. This is accomplished by data infrastructures that are provisional by design. People and forms are used as provisional gateway to interconnect various installed bases of national police and coast guard authorities, informal communication channels and ‘other’ entry fields proliferate around partially standardized classification systems, and ongoing coordination and repair tame and validate the proliferation of data. With this, the data infrastructure of joint border operations hints to a mode of Europeanization that is neither supranational nor intergovernmental. Instead of centralized administrations or fully integrated information systems, it aims for partial harmonization through interconnecting loosely information systems and institutional ecologies of national and EU agencies alike. This causes issues of accountability and requires an analysis that takes the mundane socio-technical conditions of knowledge production into account.
{"title":"Provisional by design. Frontex data infrastructures and the Europeanization of migration and border control","authors":"Silvan Pollozek, Jan-H. Passoth","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2221304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2221304","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Data infrastructures for the Frontex joint operations are often only temporary and thus in need of being built up and removed easily, adjustable to changing constellations of security actors, and adaptable to new situations. They need to work through flaws, gaps, and inconsistencies. Still, they fabricate data used for the re-identification of migrants, police investigations, situational pictures, or risk analysis and lead to the intensification of security practices of Frontex. This is accomplished by data infrastructures that are provisional by design. People and forms are used as provisional gateway to interconnect various installed bases of national police and coast guard authorities, informal communication channels and ‘other’ entry fields proliferate around partially standardized classification systems, and ongoing coordination and repair tame and validate the proliferation of data. With this, the data infrastructure of joint border operations hints to a mode of Europeanization that is neither supranational nor intergovernmental. Instead of centralized administrations or fully integrated information systems, it aims for partial harmonization through interconnecting loosely information systems and institutional ecologies of national and EU agencies alike. This causes issues of accountability and requires an analysis that takes the mundane socio-technical conditions of knowledge production into account.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"411 - 434"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47153338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-13DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2222739
B. Martins
ABSTRACT The knowledge emerging from research funded by the European Union (EU) through its Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation and other funding streams is significantly shaped by different forms of epistemic control exerted by the EU itself. Through the promotion of industry-research-policy cooperation in EU-funded research, and in light of the growing importance attached to ‘impact,’ this knowledge will often contribute to bureaucratic decisions taken by the European Commission, Frontex, the EU Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), and other agencies tasked with border security and control. The circular dynamics surrounding knowledge production, from the calls for proposals to the results of the research, are intrinsically political and contribute to exposing the limits of the EU-promoted principle of Responsible Research and Innovation. Additionally, and due to the centrality of EU funding in the research outlook in contemporary Europe, these processes raise wider questions about the sociology of the academic fields that this article relates to: critical border studies, critical security studies, and science and technology studies. How can we interpret the interplays between the EU’s policies fostering development and integration of border security technologies, on the one hand, and the Union’s broader principles for free and open research and innovation? Through the use of autoethnographic vignettes, and mediated by an expanded Foucauldian understanding of circulation as a technology of control with performative effects, the article sheds light on the dynamics surrounding knowledge production in the field of border technologies in an EU context.
{"title":"Security knowledges: circulation, control, and responsible research and innovation in EU border management","authors":"B. Martins","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2222739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2222739","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The knowledge emerging from research funded by the European Union (EU) through its Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation and other funding streams is significantly shaped by different forms of epistemic control exerted by the EU itself. Through the promotion of industry-research-policy cooperation in EU-funded research, and in light of the growing importance attached to ‘impact,’ this knowledge will often contribute to bureaucratic decisions taken by the European Commission, Frontex, the EU Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), and other agencies tasked with border security and control. The circular dynamics surrounding knowledge production, from the calls for proposals to the results of the research, are intrinsically political and contribute to exposing the limits of the EU-promoted principle of Responsible Research and Innovation. Additionally, and due to the centrality of EU funding in the research outlook in contemporary Europe, these processes raise wider questions about the sociology of the academic fields that this article relates to: critical border studies, critical security studies, and science and technology studies. How can we interpret the interplays between the EU’s policies fostering development and integration of border security technologies, on the one hand, and the Union’s broader principles for free and open research and innovation? Through the use of autoethnographic vignettes, and mediated by an expanded Foucauldian understanding of circulation as a technology of control with performative effects, the article sheds light on the dynamics surrounding knowledge production in the field of border technologies in an EU context.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"435 - 459"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49116096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2221278
Fredy Mora-Gámez
ABSTRACT Following the regulations dictated by the Law of Victims in 2012, representatives of the Colombian government have engaged in the task of registering and compensating victims of human rights perpetrations as a result of war violence. These registration procedures, mostly processing the applications of people on the move inside the national territory, are consolidated in the Official Record of Victims (RUV). The RUV enjoys international visibility as an exemplar project of post-conflict reparation and technological success of state bureaucracy. This success, however, relies upon overlooked material practices of inscription and assessment involved in processing the statements of millions of applicants. Whereas the RUV enacts boundaries of rights restitution as a state project, ethnographic excerpts about its inscription practices, assessment procedures, and data production rubrics complicate the broadly promoted success of post-conflict reparation. As other bordering technologies, the RUV demarcates boundaries of inclusion and exclusion by enacting visible forms of identification of which Internal Displacement is a predominant part. In this process, the forms and assessment practices prioritize applicants’ narrations that are consistent with the official version of the armed conflict while also making invisible divergent accounts that contest it.
{"title":"The official record of victims as a bordering technology: knowledge and (in)visibilities in post-conflict Colombia","authors":"Fredy Mora-Gámez","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2221278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2221278","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Following the regulations dictated by the Law of Victims in 2012, representatives of the Colombian government have engaged in the task of registering and compensating victims of human rights perpetrations as a result of war violence. These registration procedures, mostly processing the applications of people on the move inside the national territory, are consolidated in the Official Record of Victims (RUV). The RUV enjoys international visibility as an exemplar project of post-conflict reparation and technological success of state bureaucracy. This success, however, relies upon overlooked material practices of inscription and assessment involved in processing the statements of millions of applicants. Whereas the RUV enacts boundaries of rights restitution as a state project, ethnographic excerpts about its inscription practices, assessment procedures, and data production rubrics complicate the broadly promoted success of post-conflict reparation. As other bordering technologies, the RUV demarcates boundaries of inclusion and exclusion by enacting visible forms of identification of which Internal Displacement is a predominant part. In this process, the forms and assessment practices prioritize applicants’ narrations that are consistent with the official version of the armed conflict while also making invisible divergent accounts that contest it.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"344 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43067579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-08DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2222741
Chris Hesselbein
ABSTRACT Crowdfunding for science has been hailed both as an important means of funding early-career scholars and innovative research projects, and as a novel approach to communicating with and enabling participation by members of the public. The experiences of scientists who have sought crowdfunding and the opportunities and challenges that this entails are analyzed to critically examine claims (by platforms and in previous studies) about the democratizing potential of crowdfunding for ‘opening up’ research funding and ‘engaging’ members of the public in scientific research. Interview accounts of scientists indicate that crowdfunding can provide crucial support for under-resourced researchers as well as research projects, and that it offers a relatively unique opportunity for communicating science and enabling public participation in several aspects of the scientific research process. However, these accounts also reveal that seeking crowdfunding gives rise to several practical, social, and professional issues, such as increasing the burden of labour on already disadvantaged researchers, straining relationships with colleagues, tarnishing one’s professional status, and ultimately exacerbating inequalities among scientists. Moreover, the ostensible promise of crowdfunding for enhancing science communication and public engagement in science is undercut by the failure of both crowdfunding platforms and campaigners to take the potential non-monetary contributions or expertise of non-scientists seriously. Rather than acknowledging the potential for two-way dialogue and public participation that crowdfunding platforms can potentially provide, public input is formatted as a financial transaction, which reduces the ability of publics to influence crowdfunded projects in a meaningful manner and therefore greatly diminishes their democratic potential.
{"title":"Kickstarting science? Crowdfunded research, public engagement, and the participatory condition","authors":"Chris Hesselbein","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2222741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2222741","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Crowdfunding for science has been hailed both as an important means of funding early-career scholars and innovative research projects, and as a novel approach to communicating with and enabling participation by members of the public. The experiences of scientists who have sought crowdfunding and the opportunities and challenges that this entails are analyzed to critically examine claims (by platforms and in previous studies) about the democratizing potential of crowdfunding for ‘opening up’ research funding and ‘engaging’ members of the public in scientific research. Interview accounts of scientists indicate that crowdfunding can provide crucial support for under-resourced researchers as well as research projects, and that it offers a relatively unique opportunity for communicating science and enabling public participation in several aspects of the scientific research process. However, these accounts also reveal that seeking crowdfunding gives rise to several practical, social, and professional issues, such as increasing the burden of labour on already disadvantaged researchers, straining relationships with colleagues, tarnishing one’s professional status, and ultimately exacerbating inequalities among scientists. Moreover, the ostensible promise of crowdfunding for enhancing science communication and public engagement in science is undercut by the failure of both crowdfunding platforms and campaigners to take the potential non-monetary contributions or expertise of non-scientists seriously. Rather than acknowledging the potential for two-way dialogue and public participation that crowdfunding platforms can potentially provide, public input is formatted as a financial transaction, which reduces the ability of publics to influence crowdfunded projects in a meaningful manner and therefore greatly diminishes their democratic potential.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44448755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-08DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2221292
V. Makrygianni, Vasilis Galis
ABSTRACT Digital connectivity of queer migrants on the move to Europe plays a crucial role in confronting border regimes, heteronormativity and racist oppression. ICTs at the disposal of queer migrants interrupt the material politics of silence and violence. However, digital technology also implies serious hazards. Queer migrants use digital space to empower themselves, to build networks, and to trace, reach and create safer spaces of care. This paper conceptualises how care is materialised in self-organised actions and horizontal relationships that question power regimes and commodification practices while introducing the notion of radical digital care. Digital spaces of (radical) care constitute safe spaces of compassion where people can be heard and believed. They act as points of reference for queer people seeking recognition and care. Moreover, queer migration constitutes constant shifting between subject and care positions that redefine the notion of home and safety and the material ordering of migration itself. Based on a qualitative study of ten semi-structured interviews with solidarians and migrants, this paper reveals how the appropriation of digital media by queer migrants re-arranges the material politics of the borderland by contesting border technologies, and through radical care, allows communities to live through hardship, fear, and abuse.
{"title":"Practices of radical digital care: towards autonomous queer migration","authors":"V. Makrygianni, Vasilis Galis","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2221292","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2221292","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Digital connectivity of queer migrants on the move to Europe plays a crucial role in confronting border regimes, heteronormativity and racist oppression. ICTs at the disposal of queer migrants interrupt the material politics of silence and violence. However, digital technology also implies serious hazards. Queer migrants use digital space to empower themselves, to build networks, and to trace, reach and create safer spaces of care. This paper conceptualises how care is materialised in self-organised actions and horizontal relationships that question power regimes and commodification practices while introducing the notion of radical digital care. Digital spaces of (radical) care constitute safe spaces of compassion where people can be heard and believed. They act as points of reference for queer people seeking recognition and care. Moreover, queer migration constitutes constant shifting between subject and care positions that redefine the notion of home and safety and the material ordering of migration itself. Based on a qualitative study of ten semi-structured interviews with solidarians and migrants, this paper reveals how the appropriation of digital media by queer migrants re-arranges the material politics of the borderland by contesting border technologies, and through radical care, allows communities to live through hardship, fear, and abuse.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"387 - 410"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43019185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-08DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2221289
L. Lambert
ABSTRACT What promises do humanitarian infrastructures make to encourage migrants to abandon their migration projects? And how do migrants contest these promises? In order to curb EU-bound migration in the transit state Niger, the two UN agencies for migrants and refugees established support and outreach infrastructures that incentivized them to enroll in this humanitarian border and abandon migration. These infrastructural promises prompt their own contestation, because they may not be realized. The International Organization for Migration gave promises of assistance, the voluntariness of the return decision to the country of origin, and reintegration support. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees promised assistance, livelihood, and resettlement to asylum seekers and refugees. When these promises failed, migrants exposed the hidden standards of admission and operation of the humanitarian border infrastructures and the histories and political geographies of border violence and displacement they operated in. Through practices of voice and exit, migrants engaged in material politics that made the absent information visible. They thereby ultimately refused or even altered the services, promises, and actor roles of the humanitarian border. An analysis of such contested promises deepens an understanding of the relationships between humanitarian border infrastructures, their future orientations, and everyday migrant resistance.
{"title":"Contested promises. Migrants’ material politics vis-à-vis the humanitarian border in Niger","authors":"L. Lambert","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2221289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2221289","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 What promises do humanitarian infrastructures make to encourage migrants to abandon their migration projects? And how do migrants contest these promises? In order to curb EU-bound migration in the transit state Niger, the two UN agencies for migrants and refugees established support and outreach infrastructures that incentivized them to enroll in this humanitarian border and abandon migration. These infrastructural promises prompt their own contestation, because they may not be realized. The International Organization for Migration gave promises of assistance, the voluntariness of the return decision to the country of origin, and reintegration support. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees promised assistance, livelihood, and resettlement to asylum seekers and refugees. When these promises failed, migrants exposed the hidden standards of admission and operation of the humanitarian border infrastructures and the histories and political geographies of border violence and displacement they operated in. Through practices of voice and exit, migrants engaged in material politics that made the absent information visible. They thereby ultimately refused or even altered the services, promises, and actor roles of the humanitarian border. An analysis of such contested promises deepens an understanding of the relationships between humanitarian border infrastructures, their future orientations, and everyday migrant resistance.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"363 - 386"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42422337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-31DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2218401
Larry Au
ABSTRACT He Jiankui announced to the world in November 2018 that his team had genetically edited twin human embryos that were then brought to term. Recruiting participants through an HIV outreach group and using CRISPR/Cas9 technology, He targeted the CCR5 genes claiming this would make the children immune to HIV. One way to understand He’s case is through Charis Thompson’s concept of ethical choreography, which shows how scientists ‘invent around’ potential ethical objections to their work. In particular, such a focus on ethical choreography traces how individual scientists can exploit ambiguity in institutional boundaries to recombine different logics to advance their vision of good, innovative, and ethical science. He’s actions can be seen to been the result of his traversal of blurred boundaries that demarcate science/market and science/medicine in order to recombine academic, market, medical, and cultural logics. This combination of logics is seen in ethical justifications that He put forth for his experiment, which provoked much criticism and controversy, but should nonetheless be taken seriously and placed in context. While He’s vision of good science was rejected, examples of ethical choreography can be found in other instances of biomedical innovation and there remains the potential for other scientists to pick up where He left off. Following the ethical choreography of scientists also allows for more specificity in discussions about what and when boundaries should be strengthened or relaxed in order to advance a more equitable vision of science and technology.
{"title":"Ethical choreography in China’s Human Gene Editing controversy","authors":"Larry Au","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2218401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2218401","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT He Jiankui announced to the world in November 2018 that his team had genetically edited twin human embryos that were then brought to term. Recruiting participants through an HIV outreach group and using CRISPR/Cas9 technology, He targeted the CCR5 genes claiming this would make the children immune to HIV. One way to understand He’s case is through Charis Thompson’s concept of ethical choreography, which shows how scientists ‘invent around’ potential ethical objections to their work. In particular, such a focus on ethical choreography traces how individual scientists can exploit ambiguity in institutional boundaries to recombine different logics to advance their vision of good, innovative, and ethical science. He’s actions can be seen to been the result of his traversal of blurred boundaries that demarcate science/market and science/medicine in order to recombine academic, market, medical, and cultural logics. This combination of logics is seen in ethical justifications that He put forth for his experiment, which provoked much criticism and controversy, but should nonetheless be taken seriously and placed in context. While He’s vision of good science was rejected, examples of ethical choreography can be found in other instances of biomedical innovation and there remains the potential for other scientists to pick up where He left off. Following the ethical choreography of scientists also allows for more specificity in discussions about what and when boundaries should be strengthened or relaxed in order to advance a more equitable vision of science and technology.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47278037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-29DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2218415
Hannes Lagerlöf
Science and technology studies (STS) has long studied scientific controversies as a way to identify prospects for technical democracy. Contemporary STS tends to prioritize ‘overflowing’ controversies, where lay actors challenge experts’ technical frameworks by explicating the broader implications and so open up technological issues. Yet many controversies are not like this; they operate on a largely technical register within official procedures, so the broader implications remain implicit. In the case of Swedish nuclear waste management a major controversy did not overflow and so presents an opportunity to elaborate theoretically on such ‘inert’ controversies. Crucial insights can come from Andrew Feenberg’s critical constructivism – an alloy of STS and the Frankfurt School. It can help explain why some controversies remain inert and what is at stake there, regardless of the actors’ actions and statements. To make these contributions, critical constructivism needs to emphasize its critical heritage. As with many contemporary studies in STS, critical constructivism has increasingly come to study how change happens, at the expense of how the status quo is maintained. Through the STS idea of ‘structural closure’ – how controversies can be closed by hegemonic structures – inert controversies can be addressed by critical constructivism, thus enriching the study of controversies in STS.
{"title":"Swedish nuclear waste management as an inert controversy: using critical constructivism to understand cold technological conflict","authors":"Hannes Lagerlöf","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2218415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2218415","url":null,"abstract":"Science and technology studies (STS) has long studied scientific controversies as a way to identify prospects for technical democracy. Contemporary STS tends to prioritize ‘overflowing’ controversies, where lay actors challenge experts’ technical frameworks by explicating the broader implications and so open up technological issues. Yet many controversies are not like this; they operate on a largely technical register within official procedures, so the broader implications remain implicit. In the case of Swedish nuclear waste management a major controversy did not overflow and so presents an opportunity to elaborate theoretically on such ‘inert’ controversies. Crucial insights can come from Andrew Feenberg’s critical constructivism – an alloy of STS and the Frankfurt School. It can help explain why some controversies remain inert and what is at stake there, regardless of the actors’ actions and statements. To make these contributions, critical constructivism needs to emphasize its critical heritage. As with many contemporary studies in STS, critical constructivism has increasingly come to study how change happens, at the expense of how the status quo is maintained. Through the STS idea of ‘structural closure’ – how controversies can be closed by hegemonic structures – inert controversies can be addressed by critical constructivism, thus enriching the study of controversies in STS.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135831648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-22DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2023.2214155
B. Sterner, Steve Elliott
: Biodiversity science is in a pivotal period when diverse groups of actors—including researchers, businesses, national governments, and Indigenous Peoples—are negotiating wide-ranging norms for governing and managing biodiversity data in digital repositories. These repositories, often called biodiversity data portals, are a type of organization for which governance can address or perpetuate the colonial history of biodiversity science and current inequities. Researchers and Indigenous Peoples are developing and implementing new strategies to examine and change assumptions about which agents should count as salient participants in scientific projects, especially in projects that build and manage large digital data portals. Two notable efforts are the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority, Responsibility, Ethics) Principles for scientific data management and governance. To characterize how these principles influence the governance of biodiversity data portals, we develop an account of fit-for-use data that makes explicit its social as well as technical conditions in relation to agents and purposes. The FAIR Principles, already widely adopted by biodiversity researchers, prioritize machine agents and efficient computation, while the CARE Principles prioritize Indigenous Peoples and their data sovereignty. Both illustrate the potency of an emerging general strategy by which groups of actors craft and implement governance principles for data fitness-of-use to change assumptions about who are salient participants in data science.
{"title":"How data governance principles influence participation in biodiversity science","authors":"B. Sterner, Steve Elliott","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2214155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2214155","url":null,"abstract":": Biodiversity science is in a pivotal period when diverse groups of actors—including researchers, businesses, national governments, and Indigenous Peoples—are negotiating wide-ranging norms for governing and managing biodiversity data in digital repositories. These repositories, often called biodiversity data portals, are a type of organization for which governance can address or perpetuate the colonial history of biodiversity science and current inequities. Researchers and Indigenous Peoples are developing and implementing new strategies to examine and change assumptions about which agents should count as salient participants in scientific projects, especially in projects that build and manage large digital data portals. Two notable efforts are the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority, Responsibility, Ethics) Principles for scientific data management and governance. To characterize how these principles influence the governance of biodiversity data portals, we develop an account of fit-for-use data that makes explicit its social as well as technical conditions in relation to agents and purposes. The FAIR Principles, already widely adopted by biodiversity researchers, prioritize machine agents and efficient computation, while the CARE Principles prioritize Indigenous Peoples and their data sovereignty. Both illustrate the potency of an emerging general strategy by which groups of actors craft and implement governance principles for data fitness-of-use to change assumptions about who are salient participants in data science.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44813258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：