honoluluskye Annotations

DEUTERO: How is this analyst denoting and worrying about collaboration?

Tuesday, August 28, 2018 - 7:57am
  • AO: The analysts are worried about risks and harms involved in research (1)

    • AO: “Community peer review is premised on the idea that research is not inherently good and can cause harm, and that the best people to know whether and what kinds of harms are likely to occur are community members rather than researchers. The second premise is that the researcher’s “right” to research never supersedes a community’s right to not be harmed.” (1)

Creative Commons Licence

DISCURSIVE RISKS: What are the epistemic assumptions of the analyst of collaboration?

Tuesday, August 28, 2018 - 7:45am

AO: The analysts are very strong at the nano, meta, macro levels. They are largely missing an eco level of analysis (at least as expressed in this genre which was targeting natural scientists). They are focused on research that has already been done and how to get feedback from the community. In some ways this sounds like my idea for a community advisory commitee (in parallel to a PhD academic advisory commitee). I do wonder where the exact data collected was stored or how the infrastructure question is dealt with. I thought the paper would be on how to build a data base that was housed/managed/stored by the community themselves but they did not actually go into that side of the data, rather, they focused on the politics of data and where it was circulated. They did not talk about where it was stored and kept.

There was an underlying assumption that communities know what is best for themselves. I believe this was a known assumption (to push back against a more traditional IRB which is very paternalistic and assumes that communities do not know what is best for them per say). But given the target audience (natural scientists), the analysts did not make this explicit.

Creative Commons Licence