1/6/2025
I've been reading The Philosophy of Open Science by Sabina Leonelli, a philosopher of science. In the book (an "element") she argues that we should not think about OS as object-oriented, but relationship and "judicious connections." What does that mean? It means we should not only consider the OS movement as "the freedom to share stuff [data] [methodology] [software], but the formation of "judicious connections." Judicious connections between researchers, Leonelli argues, enable us to avoid epistemic injustices (Fricker) such as helicopter science and address the problem of "sharing just to share." However, from an information science perspective, and especially a research data management perspective, the objects should remain central. Their preservation relies on the materiality of infrastructures, as well as relationships among information science institutions and workforces (e.g. archivists and librarians). 

Granted, I take Leonelli's point that we need to de-emphasize the object-oriented nature of OS and emphasize relationships; however, data sharing still relies on the imbrication of people and objects together -- and the OS movement need still concern itself IMHO with sociomateriality of data sharing and the FAIR-ness and CARE of scholarly artifacts.         

Overall, the element offers a comprehensive overview of the philosophical issues of OS. Sabina Leonelli calls herself an applied philosopher of science, and she draws from her empirical work in open science, reproducibility, data sharing. But, there are several open questions that will require further empirical work w/r/t to Open Science movement and scientific practice. Leonelli also touches briefly on the networked nature of science and the implications of rigid standards for scientific practice, specifically, data sharing. My paper (under review) on social scientists' qualitative data sharing experiences I hope will address the question of how OS qualitative data sharing impacts research practice. Specifically, does sharing qualitative data to ICSPR promote FAIR and CARE data. TBD! 

Does technology have politics? Langdon Winner's question feels urgent, as I look at my smart watch which just inferred I was "going home.' In this historical moment, where our lives are digitized and standardized into company data that knows where we are, and that we don't "own our own faces" (Sue Fussel, 2018), I've wondered what spaces exist to ask to begin creating space to interrogate the slow pervasiveness of personal data collection, where our attention goes, and the use of technologies. One answer came in the form of a call with a family member, who recommended the Convivial Society podcast. The host, L.M. Sacasas, posed 41 beautiful questions we should ask ourselves about technologies, such as: 

1. What habits will the use of this technology instill?

2. How will the use of this technology affect my experience of time?

3. How will the use of this technology affect my experience of place?

4. How will the use of this technology affect how I relate to other people?

These questions, and creating spaces to ask them in community with others, is precisely what Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars have at the heart of their work. See Ezra Kline's interview with L.M. Sacasas and the original post: https://kottke.org/21/08/41-questions-we-should-ask-ourselves-about-the-technology-we-use