Epistemic Cultures

Cetina, Karin Knorr; Reichmann, Werner

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.10454-4

Cited by 58 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After presenting the findings, we discuss to which extent the QRPs depict differences across different knowledge production models, i.e. whether they reflect key variation in epistemic cultures and the processes of doing science (Knorr Cetina 1999;Knorr Cetina and Reichmann 2015). While it can be argued that the norms and values of research as idealized precepts and part of normative systems help shed light on research behavior and enter into analysis of research misconduct (Anderson et al 2010, 371), this article is primarily concerned with the practice of research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research

Ravn

Sørensen

2021

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research (RCR) and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) (Steneck 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research

Ravn

Sørensen

2021

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12 The idea of a "computer" became redefined over the course of the mid-20th century as the demand for data and statistics grew, fueled in part by a world war, the growth of the militaryindustrial complex, and a society ever more oriented toward knowing itself. 13 As the historian Marie Hicks has documented in the context of Britain, the entrance of men into computer programming in the 1960s and 1970s caused not only a revaluation of the field's worth but also an active closing of the door to women professionally (women became ineligible for certain jobs), socially (men's networks dominated technology spaces, including the training grounds for the development of computer skills), managerially (women were shut off from leadership roles in information and technology industries), economically (women's work was devalued), and culturally (the work of computing came to be symbolically defined as male). 14 By the mid-1970s, much of the pioneering technical work of women in the field of computing had been erased-as had their representation in these spaces, in terms of both employment and culture.…”

Section: The Intersection Of Politics and Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Tech Glass Ceiling

Kreiss¹,

Adams²,

Ciesielski³

et al. 2020

Recoding the Boys' Club

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction conveys how political technology lies at the intersection of two male-dominated fields—politics and technology—and has grown significantly in electoral importance in the 21st century. It relates how campaigns have increasingly organized dedicated divisions for technology, digital media, data, and analytics operations and have turned to a growing field of specialized political practitioners and the tech industry itself to staff them. The introduction previews the key findings and details the plan of the book. It also makes three primary arguments about the importance of gender diversity for campaigns in terms of messaging, technological design, and the functioning of campaign organizations. The introduction further argues that gender diversity matters for equity and fairness in the workforce and political culture more broadly.

show abstract

“…What are the characteristics of a scholarly field? One prominent approach characterizes fields of research by specific epistemic cultures in terms of different "architectures of empirical approaches, specific constructions of the referent, particular ontologies of instruments, and different social machines" [11, p. 3], different approaches to gain insights, different vocabularies, different publication bodies and habits [12]. On a more operational level, disciplines are characterized to "(a) have a particular object of research [.…”

Section: Research Approach 21 a Characterization Of A Scholarly Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, for the period from 1990 it is visible that currently a second generation of researchers is active and many of those persons active in the 1990s have retired by now. 12…”

Section: Scholarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Heritage as a Scholarly Field—Topics, Researchers, and Perspectives from a Bibliometric Point of View

Münster

2019

J. Comput. Cult. Herit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital heritage comprises a broad variety of approaches and topics and involves researchers from multiple disciplines. Against this background, this article presents a four-stage investigation on standards, publications, disciplinary cultures, as well as scholars in the field of digital heritage and particularly tangible objects as monuments and sites, carried out in 2016 and 2017. It includes results of (1) the inquiry of nearly 4,000 publications from major conferences, (2) a workshop-based survey involving 44 researchers, (3) 15 qualitative interviews, as well as (4) two online surveys with 1,000 and 700 participants, respectively. As an overall finding, the community is driven by researchers from European countries, especially Italy, with a background in humanities. Cross-national co-authorships are promoted by cultural and spatial closeness and-probably due to funding policy-EU membership. A discourse is primarily driven by technologies, and the most common keywords refer to the technologies used. Most prominent research areas are data acquisition and management, visualization, and analysis. Recent topics are, for instance, unmanned airborne vehicle (UAV)-based 3D surveying technologies, augmented and virtual reality visualization, metadata and paradata standards for documentation, and virtual museums. Since a lack of money is named as the biggest obstacle nowadays, competency and human resources are most frequently named as demand. An epistemic culture in the scholarly field of digital heritage is closer to engineering than to humanities. Moreover, conference series are most relevant for a scientific discourse, and especially EU projects set pace as most important research endeavors.

show abstract

Epistemic Cultures

Cited by 58 publications

References 28 publications

Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research

Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research

The Political Tech Glass Ceiling

Digital Heritage as a Scholarly Field—Topics, Researchers, and Perspectives from a Bibliometric Point of View

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About