11. Ludo-epistemology: Playing with the rules in citizen science games

Glas, René; Lammes, Sybille

doi:10.1515/9789048535200-013

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Members of online communities of amateurs that contribute by identifying species or reporting events are accessing platforms that borrow social media features such as forums, direct messaging, customisation of profiles, badges, and scores and ranks for users. Taken as a whole, these techniques of gamification are encouraged to keep participants contributing to the projects as well as producing interaction among them (Glas & Lammes, 2019; Skarlatidou & Haklay, 2020).…”

Section: Enacting Technologies: Icts As the Premise For Enlarging Par...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐experts’ participation in processes of scientific knowledge creation: The case of Citizen Science

Giardullo

2023

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public participation in science and technology, is currently being encouraged in order to fulfil the calls for a more engaging, transparent, and ethical way of governing technoscientific innovation. Several institutional documents argue for the need to enrol non‐scientists into research programs; funding schemes devoted to public engagement seem to be paving the way for new baselines for knowledge creation and innovation paths that include the contributions of citizens. Citizen Science stands out as an opportune movement to lead non‐scientists to contribute to scientific research projects and technological innovation, and it has given rise to a broad debate intersecting many sociological aspects linked to participation and community empowerment. However, the participation of non‐scientists in data collection, analysis, and interpretation is not totally new; yet it has not had the same value across time, nor has it always been considered desirable. Indeed, volunteers' engagement and amateurs' contributions have been regulated differently compared to the current rhetoric of participation. This paper gives an account of the evolution of participation of non‐experts through the lens of Science and Technology Studies, investigating its desirability, how it is governed, and whether it matches the promises of Citizen Science practitioners.

show abstract

Section: Enacting Technologies: Icts As the Premise For Enlarging Par...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐experts’ participation in processes of scientific knowledge creation: The case of Citizen Science

Giardullo

2023

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…creative indicators in machine learning), data sprints and the use of (digital) research tools. It allows to open up spaces for ludo-epistomologies (Glas and Lammes 2019; cf. 'anarcho-epistomologies', Feyerabend 1993) which can enable us to do, (for)see, produce and analyse social realities differently.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rescripting Failure: The Reflexive Stories That Fieldwork Tells

Lammes

Hjorth

Richardson

et al. 2020

SPIR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researching everyday media practices is a messy and tricky business fraught with uncertainty. In this panel the authors ask how stories of failure, especially during fieldwork, can be rethought as a meaningful emergent method and approach. How can we productively reframe failure as a core part of the research process that cannot be subsumed into the telos of a success story after the research has been completed? How does does failure work in research? Our approach takes a different stance from dominant stories in the tech industry and geek economy, where failure is often represented in linear, heroic, gendered and individualistic ways, retrospectively rendering mess as instrumental to success. Similarly, within academia there are many research processes in which failure is instrumentalised or obscured—from writing up fieldwork into neatly packaged case-studies, to causal accounts of effective intervention. Progress narratives of knowledge production have been subject to much debate and criticism. What has been less discussed is how failures work as sometimes uncontainable aspects of research praxes—how they are endemic to the process of data collection and analysis, materializing while in the field. In this panel we suggest that these experiences are core to the thickness of fieldwork—they disclose the messiness and dynamics of the social, and should be included in the stories we tell. This panel aims to liberate discussion about failure to render it visible and core to understanding the politics and ethics of fieldwork and the research process. Through a series of stories from our fieldwork, we seek to further critical understanding of methodologies and techniques of failure, and argue for our obligations as researchers to talk about what happens when things go wrong.

show abstract

11. Ludo-epistemology: Playing with the rules in citizen science games

Cited by 2 publications

References 11 publications

Non‐experts’ participation in processes of scientific knowledge creation: The case of Citizen Science

Non‐experts’ participation in processes of scientific knowledge creation: The case of Citizen Science

Rescripting Failure: The Reflexive Stories That Fieldwork Tells

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About