Hasil untuk "Science"

Jose A. Villa-Rodriguez, H. Palafox-Carlos, E. Yahia et al.

H. Peitgen, M. Barnsley

R. Bonney, T. Phillips, H. Ballard et al.

N. Wallerstein, B. Duran

S. Boehm

B. Turner, E. Lambin, A. Reenberg

R. Sawyer

E. Nagel, D. Hawkins

J. Wilby

H. Simon

M. Borup, N. Brown, Kornelia Konrad et al.

N. Myers, M. Soulé

E. Keller

L. Sperling

R. Forman, D. Sperling, J. Bissonette et al.

Gary King, James Honaker, Anne Joseph O'Connell et al.

G. Nemhauser, A. Kan

M. Eitzel, Jessica L. Cappadonna, Chris Santos‐Lang et al.

Much can be at stake depending on the choice of words used to describe citizen science, because terminology impacts how knowledge is developed. Citizen science is a quickly evolving field that is mobilizing people’s involvement in information development, social action and justice, and large-scale information gathering. Currently, a wide variety of terms and expressions are being used to refer to the concept of ‘citizen science’ and its practitioners. Here, we explore these terms to help provide guidance for the future growth of this field. We do this by reviewing the theoretical, historical, geopolitical, and disciplinary context of citizen science terminology; discussing what citizen science is and reviewing related terms; and providing a collection of potential terms and definitions for ‘citizen science’ and people participating in citizen science projects. This collection of terms was generated primarily from the broad knowledge base and on-the-ground experience of the authors, by recognizing the potential issues associated with various terms. While our examples may not be systematic or exhaustive, they are intended to be suggestive and invitational of future consideration. In our collective experience with citizen science projects, no single term is appropriate for all contexts. In a given citizen science project, we suggest that terms should be chosen carefully and their usage explained; direct communication with participants about how terminology affects them and what they would prefer to be called also should occur. We further recommend that a more systematic study of terminology trends in citizen science be conducted.

L. Laudan

In this title, Laudan constructs a fresh approach to a longtime problem for the philosopher of science: how to explain the simultaneous and widespread presence of both agreement and disagreement in science. Laudan critiques the logical empiricists and the post-positivists as he stresses the need for centrality and values and the interdependence of values, methods, and facts as prerequisites to solving the problems of consensus and dissent in science.

D. Lazer, A. Pentland, D. Watts et al.

Data sharing, research ethics, and incentives must improve The field of computational social science (CSS) has exploded in prominence over the past decade, with thousands of papers published using observational data, experimental designs, and large-scale simulations that were once unfeasible or unavailable to researchers. These studies have greatly improved our understanding of important phenomena, ranging from social inequality to the spread of infectious diseases. The institutions supporting CSS in the academy have also grown substantially, as evidenced by the proliferation of conferences, workshops, and summer schools across the globe, across disciplines, and across sources of data. But the field has also fallen short in important ways. Many institutional structures around the field—including research ethics, pedagogy, and data infrastructure—are still nascent. We suggest opportunities to address these issues, especially in improving the alignment between the organization of the 20th-century university and the intellectual requirements of the field.