Suchergebnisse

Since 2010, new research formats such as hackathons and data sprints have been developed in the field of digital research in sociology. Over a noticeably brief period, these events propose to analyze digital or digitized data and present the initial results. However, we have observed that these "short-form method » often relegate in the shadows the preparation of the data to focus on for the exploration and the visualization of datasets. As the coordinators of a research hackathon on the Digital Republic consultation, we observed the preparations required for this kind of event. Observations that highlight the critical work of « data shaping ». From the collection of data to its availability for the event, these processes are invisible by these short-form methods. Moreover, this study reveals a set of political stakes around data and open data, which are included in the technical choices made by the actors during this whole process. ; Depuis les années 2010, de nouveaux formats de recherche tels que les hackathons et les data sprints se sont développés dans le cadre d'expérimentations en sociologie numérique. Sur un temps très court, ces événements proposent d'analyser des données numériques ou numérisées et d'en présenter les premiers résultats. Or, on observe que ces « formats courts » relèguent souvent dans l'ombre la phase de préparation de ces données pour se concentrer sur l'exploration et la visualisation de jeux de données. En tant que coordonnatrices d'un hackathon recherche portant sur la consultation République numérique, nous avons observé les préparatifs à l'oeuvre dans l'organisation d'un tel événement. Des observations qui mettent en lumière un important travail de fabrication des données. De leur collecte à leur mise à disposition le jour de l'événement, ces étapes invisibilisées par ces « formats courts » révèlent un ensemble d'enjeux politiques autour de ces data et de leur ouverture, qui se dessinent même dans les choix techniques opérés par les acteurs en présence. ; Desde el año 2010, se han ...

This research investigates the worlds of contemporary French knowledge production in order to understand thedifferent meanings of the term 'open' in sciences. Specific attention has been drawn to the qualifying adjective 'open'in relation to the French translations (ouvert, libre gratuit) as well as associated terms (science, data, access) with thisformula. This inquiry began in 2013 and focused mainly on a specific event, the consultation on the bill for a "DigitalRepublic" (September-October 2015), in particular Article 9 on "open access to scientific publications in publicresearch". This online consultation has allowed for a national and public scope to the issue of access to knowledges.As an "equipped" reality test via a participative website, arose the opportunity to observe almost "live" the defense ofdifferent conceptions of "what should be" the contemporary regime of knowledges in France.Through a grounded theory approach around this particular crystallisation moment of the debates on open in scienceshas led me to gradually constitute a corpus of documents, reflecting the deployment of the exchanges on differentdigital spaces/apparatus (consultation website, scientific blogs, academic notebooks, mainstream press, etc.). Withinan iterative research process, I combined digital methods (digital mapping of the similarity of votes) and qualitativeanalysis of the corpus, as well as the theoretical concepts mobilized at the crossroads between information andcommunication sciences and "pragmatic sociology of critique".This enabled the development of a model which shows that the argumentative perspectives and the strategies in thetest implemented by various stakeholders to promote their own conceptions are underpinned by logics, which I haveattached to "spirits" of the French regime of knowledges. Subsequently, by switching from modeling to transposabletheorization into other fields of research, I show how the distinction between two logics (technoindustrial orprocessual), behind the discourses on open, can be ...

This research investigates the worlds of contemporary French knowledge production in order to understand thedifferent meanings of the term 'open' in sciences. Specific attention has been drawn to the qualifying adjective 'open'in relation to the French translations (ouvert, libre gratuit) as well as associated terms (science, data, access) with thisformula. This inquiry began in 2013 and focused mainly on a specific event, the consultation on the bill for a "DigitalRepublic" (September-October 2015), in particular Article 9 on "open access to scientific publications in publicresearch". This online consultation has allowed for a national and public scope to the issue of access to knowledges.As an "equipped" reality test via a participative website, arose the opportunity to observe almost "live" the defense ofdifferent conceptions of "what should be" the contemporary regime of knowledges in France.Through a grounded theory approach around this particular crystallisation moment of the debates on open in scienceshas led me to gradually constitute a corpus of documents, reflecting the deployment of the exchanges on differentdigital spaces/apparatus (consultation website, scientific blogs, academic notebooks, mainstream press, etc.). Withinan iterative research process, I combined digital methods (digital mapping of the similarity of votes) and qualitativeanalysis of the corpus, as well as the theoretical concepts mobilized at the crossroads between information andcommunication sciences and "pragmatic sociology of critique".This enabled the development of a model which shows that the argumentative perspectives and the strategies in thetest implemented by various stakeholders to promote their own conceptions are underpinned by logics, which I haveattached to "spirits" of the French regime of knowledges. Subsequently, by switching from modeling to transposabletheorization into other fields of research, I show how the distinction between two logics (technoindustrial orprocessual), behind the discourses on open, can be ...

This research investigates the worlds of contemporary French knowledge production in order to understand the different meanings of the term "open" in sciences. Specific attention has been drawn to the qualifying adjective open in relation to the french translations (ouvert, libre gratuit) as well as associated terms (science, data, access) with this formula. This inquiry began in 2013 and focused mainly on a specific event, the consultation on the bill for a "Digital Republic" (September-October 2015), in particular Article 9 on "open access to scientific publications in public research". This online consultation has allowed for a national and public scope to the issue of access to knowledges. As an "equipped" reality test via a participative website, arose the opportunity to observe almost "live" the defense of different conceptions of "what should be" the contemporary regime of knowledges in France. Through a grounded theory approach around this particular crystallisation moment of the debates on open in sciences has led me to gradually constitute a corpus of documents, reflecting the deployment of the exchanges on different digital spaces/apparatus (consultation website, scientific blogs, academic notebooks, mainstream press, etc.). Within an iterative research process, I combined digital methods (digital mapping of the similarity of votes) and qualitative analysis of the corpus, as well as the theoretical concepts mobilized at the crossroads between information and communication sciences and pragmatic sociology of critique. This enabled the development of a model which shows that the argumentative perspectives and the strategies in the test implemented by various stakeholders to promote their own conceptions are underpinned by logics, which I have attached to spirits of the french regime of knowledges. Subsequently, by switching from modeling to transposable theorization into other fields of research, I show how the distinction between two logics (technoindustrial or processual), behind the discourses on ...

This research investigates the worlds of contemporary French knowledge production in order to understand thedifferent meanings of the term 'open' in sciences. Specific attention has been drawn to the qualifying adjective 'open'in relation to the French translations (ouvert, libre gratuit) as well as associated terms (science, data, access) with thisformula. This inquiry began in 2013 and focused mainly on a specific event, the consultation on the bill for a "DigitalRepublic" (September-October 2015), in particular Article 9 on "open access to scientific publications in publicresearch". This online consultation has allowed for a national and public scope to the issue of access to knowledges.As an "equipped" reality test via a participative website, arose the opportunity to observe almost "live" the defense ofdifferent conceptions of "what should be" the contemporary regime of knowledges in France.Through a grounded theory approach around this particular crystallisation moment of the debates on open in scienceshas led me to gradually constitute a corpus of documents, reflecting the deployment of the exchanges on differentdigital spaces/apparatus (consultation website, scientific blogs, academic notebooks, mainstream press, etc.). Withinan iterative research process, I combined digital methods (digital mapping of the similarity of votes) and qualitativeanalysis of the corpus, as well as the theoretical concepts mobilized at the crossroads between information andcommunication sciences and "pragmatic sociology of critique".This enabled the development of a model which shows that the argumentative perspectives and the strategies in thetest implemented by various stakeholders to promote their own conceptions are underpinned by logics, which I haveattached to "spirits" of the French regime of knowledges. Subsequently, by switching from modeling to transposabletheorization into other fields of research, I show how the distinction between two logics (technoindustrial orprocessual), behind the discourses on open, can be ...

This research investigates the worlds of contemporary French knowledge production in order to understand the different meanings of the term "open" in sciences. Specific attention has been drawn to the qualifying adjective open in relation to the french translations (ouvert, libre gratuit) as well as associated terms (science, data, access) with this formula. This inquiry began in 2013 and focused mainly on a specific event, the consultation on the bill for a "Digital Republic" (September-October 2015), in particular Article 9 on "open access to scientific publications in public research". This online consultation has allowed for a national and public scope to the issue of access to knowledges. As an "equipped" reality test via a participative website, arose the opportunity to observe almost "live" the defense of different conceptions of "what should be" the contemporary regime of knowledges in France. Through a grounded theory approach around this particular crystallisation moment of the debates on open in sciences has led me to gradually constitute a corpus of documents, reflecting the deployment of the exchanges on different digital spaces/apparatus (consultation website, scientific blogs, academic notebooks, mainstream press, etc.). Within an iterative research process, I combined digital methods (digital mapping of the similarity of votes) and qualitative analysis of the corpus, as well as the theoretical concepts mobilized at the crossroads between information and communication sciences and pragmatic sociology of critique. This enabled the development of a model which shows that the argumentative perspectives and the strategies in the test implemented by various stakeholders to promote their own conceptions are underpinned by logics, which I have attached to spirits of the french regime of knowledges. Subsequently, by switching from modeling to transposable theorization into other fields of research, I show how the distinction between two logics (technoindustrial or processual), behind the discourses on ...

Introduction As part of the France's second National Plan for Open Science, the French Committee for Open Science requested to conduct a study to pave the way for an Open Science Lab (LabSO) in order to better understand the international scope and context of research on research (RoR). • Purpose of the study The study's three main objectives were: 1. to identify the major currents in academic science studies in Europe and the Americas, and indicate the main institutional actors affiliated to each current while differentiating their approaches and methods; 2. to put forward an open science workflow for analyzing qualitative and quantitative data through mixed methods and digital mapping to facilitate result uptake and communication;3. to make recommendations that draw on existing initiatives to help the French Open Science Lab position itself in the current RoR landscape • Methods Mixed methods were used to draw up a qualitative and quantitative landscape of actors and approaches based on a series of thirteen interviews and a collection of data from thousands of thematically curated websites. Through a qualitative analysis of the interview data, the report gives a broad overview of evolving RoR research trends and shows how they intersect and interact with each other. Based on a quantitative data analysis, an experimental network was also constructed and annexed to the report with the idea of making existing links between different stakeholders (institutions, communities, initiatives, infrastructures) more visible, and recommendations about their roles (funders, projects, research centers, data providers, publishers, etc.) more compelling. • ResultsThe report lays out different currents of research on research (RoR). Some are theoretically and methodologically rooted in traditional academic fields such as sociology, economics, political science, philosophy, or information science (bibliometrics and scientometrics). Others with more data intensive approaches come from computational social sciences or bio-medical ...

Introduction As part of the France's second National Plan for Open Science, the French Committee for Open Science requested to conduct a study to pave the way for an Open Science Lab (LabSO) in order to better understand the international scope and context of research on research (RoR). • Purpose of the study The study's three main objectives were: 1. to identify the major currents in academic science studies in Europe and the Americas, and indicate the main institutional actors affiliated to each current while differentiating their approaches and methods; 2. to put forward an open science workflow for analyzing qualitative and quantitative data through mixed methods and digital mapping to facilitate result uptake and communication;3. to make recommendations that draw on existing initiatives to help the French Open Science Lab position itself in the current RoR landscape • Methods Mixed methods were used to draw up a qualitative and quantitative landscape of actors and approaches based on a series of thirteen interviews and a collection of data from thousands of thematically curated websites. Through a qualitative analysis of the interview data, the report gives a broad overview of evolving RoR research trends and shows how they intersect and interact with each other. Based on a quantitative data analysis, an experimental network was also constructed and annexed to the report with the idea of making existing links between different stakeholders (institutions, communities, initiatives, infrastructures) more visible, and recommendations about their roles (funders, projects, research centers, data providers, publishers, etc.) more compelling. • ResultsThe report lays out different currents of research on research (RoR). Some are theoretically and methodologically rooted in traditional academic fields such as sociology, economics, political science, philosophy, or information science (bibliometrics and scientometrics). Others with more data intensive approaches come from computational social sciences or bio-medical ...

Introduction As part of the France's second National Plan for Open Science, the French Committee for Open Science requested to conduct a study to pave the way for an Open Science Lab (LabSO) in order to better understand the international scope and context of research on research (RoR). • Purpose of the study The study's three main objectives were: 1. to identify the major currents in academic science studies in Europe and the Americas, and indicate the main institutional actors affiliated to each current while differentiating their approaches and methods; 2. to put forward an open science workflow for analyzing qualitative and quantitative data through mixed methods and digital mapping to facilitate result uptake and communication;3. to make recommendations that draw on existing initiatives to help the French Open Science Lab position itself in the current RoR landscape • Methods Mixed methods were used to draw up a qualitative and quantitative landscape of actors and approaches based on a series of thirteen interviews and a collection of data from thousands of thematically curated websites. Through a qualitative analysis of the interview data, the report gives a broad overview of evolving RoR research trends and shows how they intersect and interact with each other. Based on a quantitative data analysis, an experimental network was also constructed and annexed to the report with the idea of making existing links between different stakeholders (institutions, communities, initiatives, infrastructures) more visible, and recommendations about their roles (funders, projects, research centers, data providers, publishers, etc.) more compelling. • ResultsThe report lays out different currents of research on research (RoR). Some are theoretically and methodologically rooted in traditional academic fields such as sociology, economics, political science, philosophy, or information science (bibliometrics and scientometrics). Others with more data intensive approaches come from computational social sciences or bio-medical ...