1 / 5

Trust and Epistemic Communities in Biodiversity Data Sharing

Trust and Epistemic Communities in Biodiversity Data Sharing. Nancy Van House SIMS, UC Berkeley www.sims.berkeley.edu/~vanhouse. Argument. Networked info >> ready access to unpublished information Information from outside own epistemic community

eyad
Download Presentation

Trust and Epistemic Communities in Biodiversity Data Sharing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Trust and Epistemic Communities in Biodiversity Data Sharing Nancy Van House SIMS, UC Berkeley www.sims.berkeley.edu/~vanhouse

  2. Argument • Networked info >> ready access to unpublished information • Information from outside own epistemic community • Accessed by people from outsideown epistemic community • Issues of trust and credibility • Of info • Of sources • Of users

  3. Risks in Networked Data • Unreliable info • Erroneous info • Undetected duplication > belief that a species is prevalent >> not preserving a population of a rare species • Chasing after erroneous reported sighting of a rare species • Confusing naturally-occurring and cultivated populations • Accurate but not credible info • Discounting significant sighting as amateur’s error • Inappropriate use of info • Private landowners destroying specimens of a rare plant to avoid legal limits on land development • Collectors (over-)collecting specimens of rare or valuable species • Cacti, orchids, floristic materials, mushrooms

  4. CalFlora Study • Empirical study of a partially user-designed, state-level biodiversity digital library consisting of occurrence data of varying quality from multiple sources: • What are the current practices around occurrence data? • How do various kinds of participants use occurrence data? • What are the concerns about networked data of: • information producers • Information users • What design alternatives have been considered? • How have various participants evaluated these alternatives? • A study of the practices of an epistemic community, the development of a knowledge space

  5. Conclusions • Information systems as sociotechnical networks • Often invisible to the participants who see them as merely technical • Trust as always a critical issue in knowledge • DLs need to accommodate practices • Incl. practices of trust and credibility • Networking as • Foregrounding taken-for-granted practices • Making new practices possible • Creating new knowledge spaces • Making linkages and equivalences across different kinds of knowledge • Empowering users to make own linkages, assessments for different purposes • Using concepts of knowledge spaces, epistemic cultures to understand and contribute to system design to fit use

More Related