Imagen de Portada
Código QR

Open Science and Epistemic Diversity: Friends or Foes?

I argue that Open Science as currently conceptualized and implemented does not take sufficient account of epistemic diversity within research. I use three case studies to exemplify how Open Science threatens to privilege some forms of inquiry over others, thus exasperating divides within and across...

Descripción completa

Publicado en:Philosophy of Science Vol. 89; no. 5; pp. 991 - 1002
Autor principal: Leonelli, Sabina
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Cambridge University Press Dec2022
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=161723312&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 161723312
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318248
        PSC
      jtl: Philosophy of Science
      issn: 00318248
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Dec2022
      vid: 89
      iid: 5
      pid: 15979
      pub: Cambridge University Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        161723312
        10.1017/psa.2022.45
      ppf: 991
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 274KB
      tig:
        atl: Open Science and Epistemic Diversity: Friends or Foes?
      aug:
        au: Leonelli, Sabina
        affil: University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
      su: Permeability
      sug:
        subj: Permeability
      ab: I argue that Open Science as currently conceptualized and implemented does not take sufficient account of epistemic diversity within research. I use three case studies to exemplify how Open Science threatens to privilege some forms of inquiry over others, thus exasperating divides within and across systems of practice, and overlooking important sources and forms of epistemic diversity. Building on insights from pluralist philosophy, I then identify four aspects of diverse research practices that should serve as reference points for debates around Open Science: (1) specificity to local conditions, (2) entrenchment within repertoires, (3) permeability to newcomers, and (4) demarcation strategies.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Philosophy of Science is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Philosophy of Science
      holder: Cambridge University Press
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2022
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N