Citizen Science, the Body of Christ, and Testimonial Epistemology

Friedrich, Benedikt; Reichel, Hanna; Renkert, Thomas

doi:10.1111/erev.12507

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where such practices bridge the Global North and South, data extraction absent anything else echoes colonial exploitation [ 205 ]. Additionally, there are issues of biased inclusion in terms of the populations that are invited to participate in traditional Citizen Science [ 223 , 224 ], with the most marginalized groups likely to be left out [ 220 , 221 , 225 , 226 ]. Likewise, there is biased participation in the crowdsourcing of information [ 227 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide reuse or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science's agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of ‘cumulative advantage’. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: ‘What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?’ Aiming to synthesize findings, identify gaps in the literature and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open and FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as ‘reproducibility’ becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where such practices bridge the global north and south, data extraction absent anything else echoes colonial exploitation [207]. Additionally, there are issues of biased inclusion in terms of the populations that are invited to participate in traditional Citizen Science [225,226], with the most marginalized groups likely to be left out [222,223,227,228]. Likewise, there is biased participation in the crowdsourcing of information [229].…”

Section: Inequities In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

Ross-Hellauer¹,

Reichmann²,

Cole³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible, and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide re-use or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science’s agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of “cumulative advantage”. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: “What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?” Aiming to synthesise findings, identify gaps in the literature, and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open/FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as “reproducibility” becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

show abstract

Distributed Normativity in Theology: On the Relevance of Empirical Research Approaches to Systematic Theology

Graff-Kallevåg

2024

Open Theology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical research methods have traditionally been absent from and are still foreigners to systematic theology. However, the turn toward practices in academic studies of religion and theology implies that empirical research methodologies cannot be deemed irrelevant to systematic theology. This article explores Hanna Reichel’s theory of theology as design, focusing on the understanding of theology as practice and the potential implications regarding the relevance of empirical methods to systematic theology. Bringing Reichel’s concept of theology as design into dialogue with Geir Afdal’s concept of distributed normativity, this article makes the case that the question of the affordances of a theological interpretation is not only an imperative theological one but also an empirical one, calling for empirical research methods.

show abstract

Citizen Science, the Body of Christ, and Testimonial Epistemology

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

Distributed Normativity in Theology: On the Relevance of Empirical Research Approaches to Systematic Theology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About