Too Much of a Good Thing? A Governing Knowledge Commons Review of Abundance in Context

Madison, Michael J.; Frischmann, Brett M.; Sanfilippo, Madelyn Rose; Strandburg, Katherine J.

doi:10.3389/frma.2022.959505

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A wealth of information may mean a lack of attention on the part of its recipients, since attention should be allocated wisely, given the overabundance of information stimuli (Kambatla et al, 2014;Madison et al, 2022). The rise of data brings with it two problems.…”

Section: Figure1mentioning

confidence: 99%

The foundations of big data sharing: A CGIAR international research organization perspective

Basel

Nguyen

Arnaud

et al. 2023

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential of big data capabilities to transform and understand global agricultural and biological systems often relies on data from different sources that must be considered together or aggregated to provide insights. The value of data is however not only in its collection and storage, but largely in its re-use. Big data storage repositories are not enough when we consider a world brimming with escalating volumes of data, here we need to consider innovative systems and tools which address data harmonization and standardization and importantly, ones that can bridge the gap between science and end users. In this paper, we will demonstrate how CGIAR (including the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT) develops a culture of co-operation and collaboration among custodians of agrobiodiversity data, as well as new directions for big data. CGIAR first launched the Platform for Big Data in Agriculture to enhance the development and maintenance of its data. This helped establish workflows of cross-platform synthesis, annotate and apply the lessons learnt. The Platform then built GARDIAN (Global Agricultural Research Data Innovation and Acceleration Network)—a digital tool that harvests from ∼40 separate open data and publication repositories that 15 CGIAR centres have used for data synthesis. While there have been significant advances in big data management and storage, we also identify the gaps to improve use, and the re-use of data in order to reveal its added value in decision making.

show abstract

Section: Figure1mentioning

confidence: 99%

The foundations of big data sharing: A CGIAR international research organization perspective

Basel

Nguyen

Arnaud

et al. 2023

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite this strong emphasis on scarcity, abundance has started to receive increasing attention by economists (Bååth & Daoud, 2021;Dugger, 2009;Peach & Dugger, 2006;Rifkin, 2014;Sheehan, 2010;Taleb, 2012), sociologists (Abbott, 2014;Hoeschele, 2010), philosophers (Swan, 2016(Swan, , 2017, legal scholars (Desai & Lemley, 2022;Madison et al, 2022), and communication scholars (Boczkowski, 2021). 3 Some attempts to conceptualize abundance echo early developments in economics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information economics examined through scarcity and abundance

Raban,

Włodarczyk

2024

The Elgar Companion to Information Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Markets and knowledge commons: Is there a difference between private and community governance of markets?

Dekker,

Kuchař

2023

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well-established that market governance can be provided by both public (state) and private organizations. However, the concept of private governance has been used, this article contends, to refer to two distinct forms of non-state governance: private governance and community governance. We distinguish between these two forms, arguing that private governance should be understood as the provision of market governance by (external) private parties, while community governance refers to a process where a group, a community, or society has the autonomy to govern its own affairs without interference from external authorities. The former internalizes the externalities associated with governance, while the latter comes about mainly as an unintended externality of social interaction in markets. To further illuminate the differences, and the relative strengths of these types of non-state governance, we distinguish among three elements of market governance: (1) the formation and interpretation of rules, (2) the administration of rules of ownership and exchange, and (3) the enforcement of rules. We argue that community governance is of great relevance for the formation and interpretation of the rules of ownership and exchange, which is consequently very hard to outsource to external parties, private or public. Community governance also plays a frequently overlooked role in administration and enforcement through the process of co-production. Rule formation and interpretation are theorized as the epistemic components of market governance, which can be analyzed within the Governing Knowledge Commons framework.

show abstract

Too Much of a Good Thing? A Governing Knowledge Commons Review of Abundance in Context

Cited by 4 publications

References 50 publications

The foundations of big data sharing: A CGIAR international research organization perspective

The foundations of big data sharing: A CGIAR international research organization perspective

Information economics examined through scarcity and abundance

Markets and knowledge commons: Is there a difference between private and community governance of markets?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About