A new ethos for science? Exploring emerging DIY science “qualities”
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9844583 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Federico Ferretti (0000-0002-5446-6522, Joint Research Centre, corresponding author), Ângela Guimarães Pereira (0000-0002-7174-3843, Joint Research Centre) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 125 |
| Pages | 102653 |
| Publication date | 2021-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Futures (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0016-3287 • E-ISSN: 1873-6378 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.futures.2020.102653 |
| OpenAlex | W3105588675 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 61 |
This paper investigates the issue of quality in the context of DIY science, a consolidating ensemble of social practices progressively gaining attention also in academia and policy. Although rarely from official institutions and with formal affiliations, DIY science practitioners often perform scientific activity aimed at the solution of incumbent problems. What becomes of scientific quality in the DIY milieu? Departing from a Post Normal Science framework, we make the case of the DIY science community as an “extended peer community” performing practices of "extended peer review". Three real cases of DIY science suggest a preliminary set of quality dimensions intrinsic to the DIY practice. Subsequently, through a purposefully designed interview study with members of different DIY communities, we look further into these quality dimensions (or “qualities”) and propose a possible “DIY ethos” embedding elements of agency, care, ‘tempo’, integrity and openness. DIY science practitioners are not necessarily concerned with quality assessments, but are rather engaged in the production of ‘extended facts’ that can be regarded in themselves as quality commitments, i.e. by acting, tinkering and hacking in the matters that are of their care and concern. We conclude by discussing that DIY science can also constitute a real case example to contrast currently existing tensions about the issue of quality in mainstream science
Agency (philosophy · Context (archaeology · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Ethos · Mainstream · Openness to experience · Political science · Public relations · Quality (philosophy · Reflexivity · Social science · Sociology · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Engineering · Innovative Human-Technology Interaction · Law · Psychology · Research Data Management Practices · Social Psychology
Re-Thinking Science
Scientific knowledge and its social problems
Peer Review and Quality Control
The Research Excellence Framework and the 'impact agenda'
Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle
Open Science
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Nepotism and sexism in peer-review
What Is the Sense of Agency and Why Does it Matter?
Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system
STEAM in practice and research
Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility
To give is better than to receive
Remaking Participation
Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science
Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima Daiichi
Trust in Numbers
Transatlantic Divergences in Citizen Science Ethics—Comparative Analysis of the DIYbio Code of Ethics Drafts of 2011
The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge
The future(s) of open science
Peer review and the relevance of science
Innovation regimes based on collaborative and global tinkering
University Research Evaluation and Funding
What is science’s crisis really about
DIYbio
The ethos of post-normal science
Science for the post-normal age
Mapping do-it-yourself science
Antifragile
Matters of care in technoscience
The Quality of 'The Quality of Science
New Democratic Sciences, Ethics, and Proper Publics
A cognitive approach to relevance of science
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |