Historical ontology and infrastructure

Ribes, David; Polk, Jessica Beth

doi:10.1145/2132176.2132209

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, research infrastructure is not only a sociotechnical system ready at hand, but also technoscientific, i.e., purposefully oriented to investigating an array of research objects (Ribes & Polk, 2012;Ribes, 2014). Over time, research infrastructure also faces changing objects of research, instruments, and methods of science.…”

Section: Technoscientific Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Flexibility Relative to What? Change to Research Infrastructure

Ribes¹,

Polk²

2014

JAIS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often said that, in the face of an ever-changing world, infrastructure must remain flexible. Yet, what is meant by change remains glib and, consequently, so too do our studies on flexibility. In this paper, we develop three sensitizing concepts to investigate change to research infrastructure: 1) technoscientific: changes in research objects, scientific methods, and instruments; 2) sociotechnical: changes in social organization, coordination and, collaboration tools; and data sharing techniques; and 3) institutional: changes in funding and regulatory regimes. The majority of studies of "information infrastructure" have focused on the sociotechnical facet, and so we offer the two additional facets of change to help sensitize researchers to empirical instances of these encountered in the field, and to broaden the research agenda. To elaborate these concepts, we focus on a long-term research infrastructure that has been investigating HIV disease for nearly thirty years: The Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). Over time, the MACS has faced tremendous changes in its science, collaboration and communication tools, its data and specimen repositories, its institutional environment, and the disease itself. Before we can begin to characterize flexibility, we must understand the nature of change research infrastructures face. We conclude by outlining a research agenda that will match forms of flexibility to the heterogeneity of changes an infrastructure may encounter.

show abstract

Section: Technoscientific Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Flexibility Relative to What? Change to Research Infrastructure

Ribes¹,

Polk²

2014

JAIS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Star also recommended focusing on one BO in any particular study, and—based on our review—we agree with this recommendation in most cases. Studying the sociotechnical infrastructure (Edwards, Bowker, Jackson, & Williams, ; Ribes et al, ) and sociomaterial assemblage (Suchman, ), however, means considering the roles of many different objects within a sociotechnical or sociomaterial system. Most studies will have a main BO of interest and focus—a system, artifact, document, classification, or other object—but there will be additional BOs of potential interest that should not be discarded from further analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boundary objects in information science

Huvila

Anderson

Jansen

et al. 2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Boundary objects are abstract or physical artefacts that exist in the liminal spaces between adjacent communities of people. The theory of BOs was originally introduced by Star and Griesemer in a study on information practices at the Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology but has since been adapted in a broad range of research contexts in a large number of disciplines including the various branches of information science. The aim of this review article is to present an overview of the state of the art of information science research informed by the theory of BOs, critically discuss the notion, and propose a structured overview of how the notion has been applied in the study of information.

show abstract

“…In spite of van den Hoven's () acknowledgment that Rawls's focus on the basic structure equips us with powerful tools for thinking about ethics in the context of design—scholars have largely overlooked the importance of the argument from the basic structure. At the same time, scholars from the area of science and technology studies have shown how the sociotechnical practices enabled by various infrastructures organize and make useful resources necessary for the operation and upkeep of political, economic, and social practices (Bowker & Star, ; Bowker, Baker, Millerand, & Ribes, ; Ribes & Polk, )—practices that make up and sustain the very background conditions with which Rawls is concerned. These discussions may offer new insight into how to best understand the relationships between institutions, individuals, and practices that make up Rawls's basic structure.…”

Section: Discussion and Possible Paths Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond distributions and primary goods: Assessing applications of rawls in information science and technology literature since 1990

Hoffmann

2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the ways in which the work and ideas of political philosopher John Rawls have been appropriated or applied by scholars of information science, technology, and related areas since 1990. The article begins with an overview of Rawls's work, paying particular attention to its foundations and methods. Subsequently, a 2‐phase discussion of the literature is presented. The first phase reviews engagements with Rawls from more than 150 scholarly articles from databases and journals dedicated to information and technology ethics, information/technology studies, philosophy of technology, and technology and human values. The second phase focuses on scholars who have demonstrated a significant commitment to Rawlsian theory in these areas. Overall, the review demonstrates that most significant applications of Rawls are oriented toward unequal distributions of informational goods exacerbated by advanced information and communication technologies (ICTs). Critically, however, scholars in this area have overlooked the relevance of Rawls's foundations for the sorts of complex networked relationships afforded by those same advanced ICTs. Rather than representing a fatal gap, it opens up a new avenue for the renewed consideration of Rawls—his ideas on the basic structure of society and the importance of self‐respect are offered as 2 possible paths forward.

show abstract

Historical ontology and infrastructure

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

Flexibility Relative to What? Change to Research Infrastructure

Flexibility Relative to What? Change to Research Infrastructure

Boundary objects in information science

Beyond distributions and primary goods: Assessing applications of rawls in information science and technology literature since 1990

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About