An official website of the United States government
There are newer efforts from funding organizations and agencies incentivizing collaborative research. I refer to collaborative research as research that requires the engagement from more than one institution, community, and/or economic sector, for example: participatory research, reciprocal research, convergence science, research-practice partnerships, university-industry partnerships, cross-disciplinary research and more. Compared to more traditional research, the formation of collaborative research ideas, roles of collaborators, and budgets alone take longer to develop before they are ready to present to funders. And if funded, research outcomes are harder to control and predict and the level of communication required across collaborators is higher in terms of keeping the vision forward (e.g., goals, roles, timeline) and in terms of effective research administration (e.g., budgeting, ethical reviews, documentation, compliance).Then, to broaden perspectives and participation in research, newer efforts also encourage non-traditional researchers to engage or lead collaborative research. I refer to a non-traditional researcher as someone who earned a PhD but for whom research is not a part of their current role, and who is at an institution that does not have research enterprise infrastructure to support them in accessing research funding easily or at all (e.g., a grants office). In this paper, I discuss a case study of collaborative research I lead for eight years, involving K-12 teachers, community college faculty, university researchers, and non-academic organizations in terms of the planning and coordination required compared to traditional research. I will also provide suggestions to lower barriers to access funding for and deliver on this type of research.
more »
« less
Sheltering: Care Tactics for Ethnography Attentive to Intersectionality and Underrepresentation in Technoscience
Designing ethnographic research on the technoscience workforce according to intersectionality theory presents both opportunities and constraints. On the one hand, the pursuit of justice in technoscience requires attending to differences between scientists who have been disenfranchised from knowledge production due to racism and sexism. On the other hand, sharing the lived experiences of severely underrepresented members of technoscience heightens the risk of harm. I introduce a practice called Sheltering, inspired by the computer science technique of “black boxing” and feminist methodology of “strong objectivity.” The opacity of the shelter in which some data resides is balanced with the transparency of the researcher’s positionality. Combining reflexivity, refusal, and performative design, Sheltering contests dominant norms in science, while minimizing risks of retaliation to collaborators. It also balances communal responsibilities with research integrity. It not only requires consideration for the researcher’s relationship with collaborators, but also attention to power in the worlds they navigate and solidarity in their struggles. Sheltering, a repertoire of care tactics to protest epistemic and social injustice in US knowledge production, can help transform who gets to produce science and reimagine other ways of knowing.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2409905
- PAR ID:
- 10511237
- Publisher / Repository:
- Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience
- Volume:
- 9
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2380-3312
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Understanding and redressing the climate crisis in the Arctic demands acknowledging and translating perspectives from frontline communities, environmental scientists, Indigenous knowledge bearers, and social scientists. As a first approximation to the question of how Arctic scientists conceptualize and enact “knowledge co-production,” we analyze how they write about it in their academic publications through a systematic literature review. Based on the results, we identify the lack of clear definition and practical engagement with “co-production” understood as a practice of integrating knowledges and methodological approaches from various disciplines and cultures. We raise concerns regarding researchers’ claims of co-production without understanding what it means, which is particularly harmful for Arctic communities whose knowledge practices scientists have long marginalized and exploited. In response, we argue that feminist STS scholarship provides crucial guidance on how to create and sustain meaningful relationships for knowledge co-production. These relationships can potentially subvert power inequities that have prevented many Arctic science teams from breaking out of traditional disciplinary silos to create new forms of knowledge exchange, particularly those based on notions of care for collaborators, communities, and equity.more » « less
-
This article presents findings on international research collaboration from a National Science Foundation-funded study with 83 faculty in science and engineering (S&E) who returned to India after studying and working in the United States. These faculty members were brought up in the Indian socio-cultural context, but they were professionalized in the scientific culture of Western academia. When they returned to India to take a faculty position, they knew collaborators in the US with desired skills, including their advisors. Yet, returned Indian migrant faculty face significant challenges in establishing successful international research collaboration with their American peers. Interestingly, this is not the case with collaborators from Europe and other parts of the world with whom they had little connection before moving to India. Findings show some inequities that exist between scientists and engineers in the US and India that pertain to resources and attitudes towards collaboration.more » « less
-
Environmental scientists, land managers, and policy actors are increasingly presented with high-stakes high-uncertainty problems stemming from human-ecosystem interactions. These interactions exacerbate already challenging issues associated with environmental policy and natural resource management. To address these problems, scientists and managers frequently use models that produce enormous geospatial and temporal datasets that are constantly modified. To help make sense of this complex and changing data, we are immersed in a co-production effort where software engineers and environmental scientists collaborate on the development of visualization software. We report on this on-going research, and find that visualization is critical not only for communicating science, but integral to many aspects of the science production pipeline and evolving data science field. We also find evidence among our collaborators that this software co-production process helps build legitimacy for the information it produces, with potential implications for generating actionable science for policy and governance.more » « less
-
This essay draws on qualitative social science to propose a critical intellectual infrastructure for data science of social phenomena. Qualitative sensibilities— interpretivism, abductive reasoning, and reflexivity in particular—could address methodological problems that have emerged in data science and help extend the frontiers of social knowledge. First, an interpretivist lens—which is concerned with the construction of meaning in a given context—can enable the deeper insights that are requisite to understanding high-level behavioral patterns from digital trace data. Without such contextual insights, researchers often misinterpret what they find in large-scale analysis. Second, abductive reasoning—which is the process of using observations to generate a new explanation, grounded in prior assumptions about the world—is common in data science, but its application often is not systematized. Incorporating norms and practices from qualitative traditions for executing, describing, and evaluating the application of abduction would allow for greater transparency and accountability. Finally, data scientists would benefit from increased reflexivity—which is the process of evaluating how researchers’ own assumptions, experiences, and relationships influence their research. Studies demonstrate such aspects of a researcher’s experience that typically are unmentioned in quantitative traditions can influence research findings. Qualitative researchers have long faced these same concerns, and their training in how to deconstruct and document personal and intellectual starting points could prove instructive for data scientists. We believe these and other qualitative sensibilities have tremendous potential to facilitate the production of data science research that is more meaningful, reliable, and ethical.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v9i2.39368
