An official website of the United States government
Data science has been growing in prominence across both academia and industry, but there is still little formal consensus about how to teach it. Many people who currently teach data science are practitioners such as computational researchers in academia or data scientists in industry. To understand how these practitioner-instructors pass their knowledge onto novices and howthat contrasts with teaching more traditional forms of programming, we interviewed 20 data scientists who teach in settings ranging from small-group workshops to large online courses. We found that: 1) they must empathize with a diverse array of student backgrounds and expectations, 2) they teach technical workflows that integrate authentic practices surrounding code, data, and communication, 3) they face challenges involving authenticity versus abstraction in software setup, finding and curating pedagogically-relevant datasets, and acclimating students to live with uncertainty in data analysis. These findings can point the way toward better tools for data science education and help bring data literacy to more people around the world.
more »
« less
Use your power for good: Collective action to overcome institutional injustices impeding ethical science communication in the academy
Abstract Science communication (scicomm) shapes our world by helping people use science to make societal and personal decisions. Supporting and doing ethical scicomm requires valuing diverse perspectives and the people who do scicomm. Unfortunately, institutional hurdles ingrained in academia impede and undermine ethical scicomm. The injustices impeding scicomm stem from the prestige paradigm of academia (articulated in the present article), which reinforces hierarchical relationships in an exclusionary and exploitative system. To move academia forward, we name and review these injustices through the lens of five realms of scicomm (scientific communication, teaching scicomm, academics engaging in scicomm, scicomm research, and scicomm careers beyond academia). We then provide a novel framework, helping readers identify axes of influence and how they can leverage their intersectional, academic capital to take concrete action to remove the hurdles impeding ethical scicomm in academia.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10547883
- Publisher / Repository:
- Oxford University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- BioScience
- Volume:
- 74
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 0006-3568
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 747-769
- Size(s):
- p. 747-769
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The relationship between graduate students and their research advisors within academia is pivotal to the development and success of the research enterprise. Graduate students rely on their faculty advisor to be a source of information, a departmental negotiator, and a role model to guide their professional and ethical behavior. However, if an advisor does not fully recognize a student’s best interest or they are unaware of how to be an “ethical mentor”, they may overlook the unique social capital of the graduate student (e.g., background, culture) and jeopardize the research relationship. This work aims to explore how women graduate students and faculties in science and engineering understand ethical mentoring within research relationships. Particularly, we are interested in understanding the six ethical mentoring principles suggested by Johnson (2016)—beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, fidelity, fairness, and privacy—all of which require an in-depth understanding for a productive research relationship. Qualitative analysis revealed that participants emphasized the principles of beneficence and fidelity, while principles of privacy and fairness were mentioned the least. Three key themes emerged from this analysis: (a) communication; (b) relative power between mentor and mentee; and (c) awareness (or a lack thereof) around implicit expectations within the research culture.more » « less
-
This research develops a model of mobile social network dispersion in rescue communication, and illustrates how people use a combination of mobile and social media, along with real-time communication, in their decision-making process. Guided by established research on smartphones, social media, and affordances, we used a qualitative approach and conducted field interviews that included photo-elicitation interview (PEI) techniques to examine participants’ private social media data. Our analysis of these rescue decisions reveals why so few people used the official 9-1-1 system. We show how rescue communication often occurs through a socially constructed assessment of risk that involves persuasion by trusted others in their network, regardless of professional qualifications. Furthermore, trusted others can function as proxies and can draw upon mobile social network affordances, helping to compensate for material limitations. The affordances people drew from can be organized into two sets: foundational and amplification. Hierarchical relationships exist among these sets of affordances, and materiality plays a pivotal role in rescue communication. Ultimately, our analysis uncovers the multimodality around people’s decisions to ask for help.more » « less
-
Automation transformed various aspects of our human civilization, revolutionizing industries and streamlining processes. In the domain of scientific inquiry, automated approaches emerged as powerful tools, holding promise for accelerating discovery, enhancing reproducibility, and overcoming the traditional impediments to scientific progress. This article evaluates the scope of automation within scientific practice and assesses recent approaches. Furthermore, it discusses different perspectives to the following questions: where do the greatest opportunities lie for automation in scientific practice?; What are the current bottlenecks of automating scientific practice?; and What are significant ethical and practical consequences of automating scientific practice? By discussing the motivations behind automated science, analyzing the hurdles encountered, and examining its implications, this article invites researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders to navigate the rapidly evolving frontier of automated scientific practice.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)In citizen science, data stewards and data producers are often not the same people. When those who have labored on data collection are not in control of the data, ethical problems could arise from this basic structural feature. In this Perspective, we advance the proposition that stewarding data sets generated by volunteers involves the typical technical decisions in conventional research plus a suite of ethical decisions stemming from the relationship between professionals and volunteers. Differences in power, priorities, values, and vulnerabilities are features of the relationship between professionals and volunteers. Thus, ethical decisions about open data practices in citizen science include, but are not limited to, questions grounded in respect for volunteers: who decides data governance structures, who receives attribution for a data set, which data are accessible and to whom, and whose interests are served by the data use/re-use. We highlight ethical issues that citizen science practitioners should consider when making data governance decisions, particularly with respect to open data.more » « less
