Beyond the digital divide: Towards a situated approach to open data

Bezuidenhout, Louise; Leonelli, Sabina; Kelly, Ann H.; Rappert, Brian

doi:10.1093/scipol/scw036

Cited by 103 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The availability of data may well require more ICT resources to access, more analytical resources to engage with, and more sophisticated legal support around intellectual property to publish on (Bezuidenhout, Leonelli, Kelly & Rappert, 2017). The rapid change in the way and scale on which data are generated holds significant promise for people and institutions with resources constraints to be able to use data for decision-making, although these innovations do not solve, but rather shift, the previous barriers.…”

Section: Challenges To Building Data Systems For Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Utility of the AfrED Database

Mapitsa¹

2019

Evaluation Landscape in Africa: Context, Methods and Capacity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Challenges To Building Data Systems For Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Utility of the AfrED Database

Mapitsa¹

2019

Evaluation Landscape in Africa: Context, Methods and Capacity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…how participants think about the impact of their work, what are their publics, what and whom they address). However, to reach these goals, openness advocates need to take account of the staggering differences between research environments in various parts of the world, which include not only available funding and resources, but also the wider infrastructure and institutionalisation of scientific work (Bezuidenhout et al, 2016). Many open-science projects, no matter how well intentioned, do not treat their prospective participants as equals and tend to impose their own vision of what it means to do research and share information without taking account (and in many cases, without being fully aware of) the conditions under which some of their publics and users work.…”

Section: Inclusiveness and Social Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility

Prainsack¹,

Leonelli²

2018

Science and the Politics of Openness

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Openness has become fashionable. Governments, software and even humans are furnished with the adjective 'open'. This is not a quiet and modest adjective, but entails a demanding cluster of requirements. To be open means to be transparent, responsible, accountable and inclusive. In other words: to be open is to be good. 1 What does this mean for science? If we understand openness as the commitment to make the tools and processes of science replicable and open to scrutiny, then science has had a particularly close relationship with openness from its earliest beginnings. It is true that science has been, and still is, to a large extent an elite activity. But the idea that people other than those involved in the creation of a scientific finding need to be able to scrutinise claims in order to find possible errors and to corroborate or falsify hypotheses and claims is intrinsic to the very concept of science. It is the requirement of transparency, intelligibility (if only to peers) and openness to scrutiny that distinguishes science from other instances of skilful practice or from an informed debate. Openness about how we arrive at conclusions on the basis of evidence is what enables the type of empirical self-corrective knowledge creation that science has (often rightly) claimed to be. Why is it, then, that openness-in science, but also in other domains of life-has become such a buzzword in the twenty-first century? There

show abstract

“…Hell, how about potable water?" Moreover, the benefits of technology are far from equally distributed, as many researchers on the digital divide can attest [38][39][40][41]. In his discussion of the consequences of technological innovation (e.g., automation eliminating jobs, a globalized labor force), Hibbard [42] asks, "Are we in such a rush to develop and exploit technology that we can't provide a little dignity to those who are hurt?"…”

Section: Conclusion and Possibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Love, Emotion and the Singularity

Lunceford

2018

Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of the singularity hypothesis have argued that there will come a point at which machines will overtake us not only in intelligence but that machines will also have emotional capabilities. However, human cognition is not something that takes place only in the brain; one cannot conceive of human cognition without embodiment. This essay considers the emotional nature of cognition by exploring the most human of emotions—romantic love. By examining the idea of love from an evolutionary and a physiological perspective, the author suggests that in order to account for the full range of human cognition, one must also account for the emotional aspects of cognition. The paper concludes that if there is to be a singularity that transcends human cognition, it must be embodied. As such, the singularity could not be completely non-organic; it must take place in the form of a cyborg, wedding the digital to the biological.

show abstract

Beyond the digital divide: Towards a situated approach to open data

Abstract: Poor provision of information and communication technologies in low

Cited by 103 publications

References 42 publications

The Utility of the AfrED Database

The Utility of the AfrED Database

Responsibility

Love, Emotion and the Singularity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About