https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Open_science%2FIntroductionOpen science/Introduction - Revision history2026-06-12T08:06:00ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.41.0https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5683&oldid=prevJoanna at 11:20, 10 June 20142014-06-10T11:20:37Z<p></p>
<a href="https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5683&oldid=5682">Show changes</a>Joannahttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5682&oldid=prevJoanna at 11:19, 10 June 20142014-06-10T11:19:52Z<p></p>
<a href="https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5682&oldid=5681">Show changes</a>Joannahttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5681&oldid=prevJoanna at 11:18, 10 June 20142014-06-10T11:18:20Z<p></p>
<a href="https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5681&oldid=5680">Show changes</a>Joannahttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5680&oldid=prevJoanna at 11:17, 10 June 20142014-06-10T11:17:18Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en-GB">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:17, 10 June 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l11">Line 11:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 11:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><blockquote>Today PLoS released Pubget links across its journal sites. Now, when users are browsing thousands of reference citations on PLoS journals they will be able to get to the full text article faster than ever before. <br><br> Specifically, when readers encounter citations to articles as recorded by CrossRef (which are accessed via the ‘CrossRef’ link in the ‘Cited in’ section of any article’s Metrics tab), a PDF icon will also appear if it is freely available via Pubget. Clicking on the icon will take you directly to the PDF. <br><br> On launching this new functionality, Pete Binfield, Publisher of PLoS ONE and the Community Journals said: ‘Any service, like Pubget, that makes it easier for authors to quickly find the information they need is a welcome addition to our articles. We like how Pubget helps to break down content walls in science, letting users get instantly to the article-level detail that they seek.’ (Pubget, 2010)</blockquote> </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><blockquote>Today PLoS released Pubget links across its journal sites. Now, when users are browsing thousands of reference citations on PLoS journals they will be able to get to the full text article faster than ever before. <br><br> Specifically, when readers encounter citations to articles as recorded by CrossRef (which are accessed via the ‘CrossRef’ link in the ‘Cited in’ section of any article’s Metrics tab), a PDF icon will also appear if it is freely available via Pubget. Clicking on the icon will take you directly to the PDF. <br><br> On launching this new functionality, Pete Binfield, Publisher of PLoS ONE and the Community Journals said: ‘Any service, like Pubget, that makes it easier for authors to quickly find the information they need is a welcome addition to our articles. We like how Pubget helps to break down content walls in science, letting users get instantly to the article-level detail that they seek.’ (Pubget, 2010)</blockquote> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br>'''Open Data ''' <br><br> Yet it is not just the research literature that is positioned as being rendered more accessible by scientists. Even the data created in the course of scientific research is promoted as being made freely and openly available for others to use, analyse and build upon.This includes data sets that are too large to be included in any resulting peer-reviewed publications. Known as open data, or data-sharing, this initiative is motivated by the idea that publishing data online on an open basis bestows it with a [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17424/1/Swan_-_NERC_09.pptx ‘vastly increased utility’]. Digital data sets are said to be ‘easily passed around’; they are seemingly ‘more easily reused’, reanalysed and checked for accuracy and validity; and they supposedly contain more ‘opportunities for educational and commercial exploitation’ (Swan, 2009). <br><br> Interestingly, certain academic publishers are already viewing the linking of their journals to the underlying data as another of the ‘value-added’ services they can offer, to set alongside automatic alerting and sophisticated citation, indexing, searching and linking facilities (and to no doubt help ward off the threat of disintermediation posed by the development of digital technology, which enables academics to take over the means of dissemination and publish their work for and by themselves cheaply and easily). Significantly, a [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/opensciencerpt.aspx 2009 JISC report] also identified ‘open-ness, predictive science based on massive data volumes and citizen involvement as [all] being important features of tomorrow’s research practice’. <br><br> In a further move in this direction, all Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals are now providing a broad range of article-level metrics and indicators relating to usage data on an open basis. No longer withheld as trade secrets, these metrics reveal which articles are attracting the most views, citations from the scholarly literature, social bookmarks, coverage in the media, comments, responses, ‘star’ ratings, blog coverage, and so on. PLoS has positioned this programme as enabling science scholars to assess [http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2009/09/article-level-metrics-at-plos-addition-of-usage-data/ ‘research articles on their own merits rather than on the basis of the journal (and its impact factor) where the work happens to be published’], and they encourage readers to carry out their own analyses of this open data (Patterson, 2009). Yet it is difficult not to perceive such article-level metrics and management tools as also being part of the wider process of transforming knowledge and learning into ‘quantities of information’ (Lyotard, 1986: 4); quantities, furthermore, that are produced more to be exchanged, marketed and sold (1986: 4) – for example, by individual academics to their departments, institutions, funders and governments in the form of indicators of ‘quality’ and ‘impact’ (1986: 5). <br><br> '''From Open Science to Open Government ''' <br><br> Such developments around open access and open data are themselves part of the larger trend or phenomenon that is coming to be known as ‘open science’. As Murray et al put it: <br><br> </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br>'''Open Data ''' <br><br> Yet it is not just the research literature that is positioned as being rendered more accessible by scientists. Even the data created in the course of scientific research is promoted as being made freely and openly available for others to use, analyse and build upon.This includes data sets that are too large to be included in any resulting peer-reviewed publications. Known as open data, or data-sharing, this initiative is motivated by the idea that publishing data online on an open basis bestows it with a [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17424/1/Swan_-_NERC_09.pptx ‘vastly increased utility’]. Digital data sets are said to be ‘easily passed around’; they are seemingly ‘more easily reused’, reanalysed and checked for accuracy and validity; and they supposedly contain more ‘opportunities for educational and commercial exploitation’ (Swan, 2009). <br><br> Interestingly, certain academic publishers are already viewing the linking of their journals to the underlying data as another of the ‘value-added’ services they can offer, to set alongside automatic alerting and sophisticated citation, indexing, searching and linking facilities (and to no doubt help ward off the threat of disintermediation posed by the development of digital technology, which enables academics to take over the means of dissemination and publish their work for and by themselves cheaply and easily). Significantly, a [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/opensciencerpt.aspx 2009 JISC report] also identified ‘open-ness, predictive science based on massive data volumes and citizen involvement as [all] being important features of tomorrow’s research practice’. <br><br> In a further move in this direction, all Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals are now providing a broad range of article-level metrics and indicators relating to usage data on an open basis. No longer withheld as trade secrets, these metrics reveal which articles are attracting the most views, citations from the scholarly literature, social bookmarks, coverage in the media, comments, responses, ‘star’ ratings, blog coverage, and so on. PLoS has positioned this programme as enabling science scholars to assess [http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2009/09/article-level-metrics-at-plos-addition-of-usage-data/ ‘research articles on their own merits rather than on the basis of the journal (and its impact factor) where the work happens to be published’], and they encourage readers to carry out their own analyses of this open data (Patterson, 2009). Yet it is difficult not to perceive such article-level metrics and management tools as also being part of the wider process of transforming knowledge and learning into ‘quantities of information’ (Lyotard, 1986: 4); quantities, furthermore, that are produced more to be exchanged, marketed and sold (1986: 4) – for example, by individual academics to their departments, institutions, funders and governments in the form of indicators of ‘quality’ and ‘impact’ (1986: 5). <br><br> '''From Open Science to Open Government ''' <br><br> Such developments around open access and open data are themselves part of the larger trend or phenomenon that is coming to be known as ‘open science’. As Murray et al put it: <br><br> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><blockquote>Open science is emerging as a collaborative and transparent approach to research. It is the idea that all data (both published and unpublished) should be freely available, and that private interests should not stymie its use by means of copyright, intellectual property rights and patents. It also embraces open access publishing and open source software… (Murray et al, 2008)</blockquote> </div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><blockquote>Open science is emerging as a collaborative and transparent approach to research. It is the idea that all data (both published and unpublished) should be freely available, and that private interests should not stymie its use by means of copyright, intellectual property rights and patents. It also embraces open access publishing and open source software… (Murray et al, 2008)</blockquote></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>One of the most interesting and well known examples of how such open science may work is provided by the Open Notebook Science of the organic chemist Jean-Claude Bradley. ‘[I]in the interests of openness’, Bradley is making the [http://www.infotoday.com/IT/sep10/Poynder.shtml ‘details of every experiment done in his lab freely available on the web']. This ‘includes all the data generated from these experiments too, even the failed experiments’. What is more, he is doing so in ‘real time’, ‘within hours of production, not after the months or years involved in peer review’ (Poynder, 2010). Again, we can see how emphasis is being placed on the amount of research that can be shared, and the speed with which this can be achieved. This openness on Bradley’s part is also positioned as a means of achieving usefulness and impact, as is evident from the very title of one of his Open Notebook Science projects, [http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ UsefulChem]. <br><br> To be fair, however, such discourses around openness, transparency, efficiency and utility are not confined to the sciences – or even the university, for that matter. There are also wider political initiatives, dubbed ‘Open Government’, or ‘Government 2.0’, with both the Labour and the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition administrations in the UK making a great display of freeing government information. The Labour government implemented the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in 2000, and then proceeded to launch a [http://www.data.gov.uk website] expressly dedicated to the release of governmental data sets in January 2010. It is a website that the current Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government continues to make extensive use of. In a similar vein, the [http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/ Guardian] newspaper has campaigned for the UK government to relinquish its copyright on all local, regional and national data collected with taxpayers’ money and to make such data freely and openly available to the public by publishing it online, where it can be collectively and collaboratively scrutinized, searched, mined, mapped, graphed, cross-tabulated, visualized, audited and interpreted using software tools. <br><br> Nor is this phenomenon confined to the UK. In the United States Barack Obama promised throughout his election campaign to make government more open. He followed this up by issuing a memorandum on transparency the very first day after he became President, vowing to make openness one of [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22obama.html ‘the touchstones of this presidency’”] (Obama, cited in Stolberg, 2009): ‘[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ My Administration] is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government’ (The White House, 2009). <br><br>'''The Politics of Openness''' <br><br> The connection I am making here between the movements for open access, open data, open science and open government is one that has to a certain extent already been pointed to by Michael Gurstein in his reflections on the experience of attending the 2011 conference of the [http://okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation]. For Gurstein: <br><br> </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>One of the most interesting and well known examples of how such open science may work is provided by the Open Notebook Science of the organic chemist Jean-Claude Bradley. ‘[I]in the interests of openness’, Bradley is making the [http://www.infotoday.com/IT/sep10/Poynder.shtml ‘details of every experiment done in his lab freely available on the web']. This ‘includes all the data generated from these experiments too, even the failed experiments’. What is more, he is doing so in ‘real time’, ‘within hours of production, not after the months or years involved in peer review’ (Poynder, 2010). Again, we can see how emphasis is being placed on the amount of research that can be shared, and the speed with which this can be achieved. This openness on Bradley’s part is also positioned as a means of achieving usefulness and impact, as is evident from the very title of one of his Open Notebook Science projects, [http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ UsefulChem]. <br><br> To be fair, however, such discourses around openness, transparency, efficiency and utility are not confined to the sciences – or even the university, for that matter. There are also wider political initiatives, dubbed ‘Open Government’, or ‘Government 2.0’, with both the Labour and the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition administrations in the UK making a great display of freeing government information. The Labour government implemented the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in 2000, and then proceeded to launch a [http://www.data.gov.uk website] expressly dedicated to the release of governmental data sets in January 2010. It is a website that the current Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government continues to make extensive use of. In a similar vein, the [http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/ Guardian] newspaper has campaigned for the UK government to relinquish its copyright on all local, regional and national data collected with taxpayers’ money and to make such data freely and openly available to the public by publishing it online, where it can be collectively and collaboratively scrutinized, searched, mined, mapped, graphed, cross-tabulated, visualized, audited and interpreted using software tools. <br><br> Nor is this phenomenon confined to the UK. In the United States Barack Obama promised throughout his election campaign to make government more open. He followed this up by issuing a memorandum on transparency the very first day after he became President, vowing to make openness one of [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22obama.html ‘the touchstones of this presidency’”] (Obama, cited in Stolberg, 2009): ‘[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ My Administration] is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government’ (The White House, 2009). <br><br>'''The Politics of Openness''' <br><br> The connection I am making here between the movements for open access, open data, open science and open government is one that has to a certain extent already been pointed to by Michael Gurstein in his reflections on the experience of attending the 2011 conference of the [http://okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation]. For Gurstein: <br><br> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><blockquote>[http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emerging-data-divide/ the ‘open data/open government’ movement] begins from a profoundly political perspective that government is largely ineffective and inefficient (and possibly corrupt) and that it hides that ineffectiveness and inefficiency (and possible corruption) from public scrutiny through lack of transparency in its operations and particularly in denying to the public access to information (data) about its operations. And further that this access once available would give citizens the means to hold bureaucrats (and their political masters) accountable for their actions. In doing so it would give these self-same citizens a platform on which to undertake (or at least collaborate with) these bureaucrats in certain key and significant activities—planning, analyzing, budgeting that sort of thing. Moreover through the implementation of processes of crowdsourcing this would also provide the bureaucrats with the overwhelming benefits of having access to and input from the knowledge and wisdom of the broader interested public. <br><br> Put in somewhat different terms but with essentially the same meaning—it’s the taxpayer’s money and they have the right to participate in overseeing how it is spent. Having “open” access to government’s data/information gives citizens the tools to exercise that right. (Gurstein, 2011)</blockquote> </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><blockquote>[http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emerging-data-divide/ the ‘open data/open government’ movement] begins from a profoundly political perspective that government is largely ineffective and inefficient (and possibly corrupt) and that it hides that ineffectiveness and inefficiency (and possible corruption) from public scrutiny through lack of transparency in its operations and particularly in denying to the public access to information (data) about its operations. And further that this access once available would give citizens the means to hold bureaucrats (and their political masters) accountable for their actions. In doing so it would give these self-same citizens a platform on which to undertake (or at least collaborate with) these bureaucrats in certain key and significant activities—planning, analyzing, budgeting that sort of thing. Moreover through the implementation of processes of crowdsourcing this would also provide the bureaucrats with the overwhelming benefits of having access to and input from the knowledge and wisdom of the broader interested public. <br><br> Put in somewhat different terms but with essentially the same meaning—it’s the taxpayer’s money and they have the right to participate in overseeing how it is spent. Having “open” access to government’s data/information gives citizens the tools to exercise that right. (Gurstein, 2011)</blockquote> </div></td></tr>
</table>Joannahttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5679&oldid=prevJoanna at 11:16, 10 June 20142014-06-10T11:16:46Z<p></p>
<a href="https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5679&oldid=5678">Show changes</a>Joannahttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5678&oldid=prevJoanna at 11:16, 10 June 20142014-06-10T11:16:03Z<p></p>
<a href="https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5678&oldid=5677">Show changes</a>Joannahttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5677&oldid=prevJoanna at 11:01, 10 June 20142014-06-10T11:01:48Z<p></p>
<a href="https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5677&oldid=5676">Show changes</a>Joannahttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5676&oldid=prevJoanna at 11:00, 10 June 20142014-06-10T11:00:21Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en-GB">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:00, 10 June 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l5">Line 5:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 5:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>= Gary Hall =</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>= Gary Hall =</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br><br> <youtube>PH54cp2ggFk</youtube> <br><br> One of the explicit aims of the Living Books About Life series is to provide a&nbsp; point of interrogation and contestation, as well as connection and translation, between the humanities and the sciences (partly to avoid slipping into 'scientism'). Accordingly, this introduction to ''Digitize Me, Visualize Me, Search Me'' takes as its starting point the so-called ‘computational turn’ to data-intensive scholarship in the humanities. <br><br> The phrase ‘[http://www.thecomputationalturn.com/ the computational turn]’ has been adopted to refer to the process whereby techniques and methodologies drawn from (in this case) ''computer science'' and related fields – including science visualization, interactive information visualization, image processing, network analysis, statistical data analysis, and the management, manipulation and mining of data – are being used to produce new ways of approaching and understanding texts in the humanities; what is sometimes thought of as ‘the digital humanities’. The concern in the main has been with either digitizing ‘born analog’ humanities texts and artifacts (e.g. making annotated editions of the art and writing of [http://www.blakearchive.org/blake/ William Blake] available to scholars and researchers online), or gathering together ‘born digital’ humanities texts and artifacts (videos, websites, games, photography, sound recordings, 3D data), and then taking complex and often extremely large-scale data analysis techniques from computing science and related fields and applying them to these humanities texts and artifacts - to this ‘big data’, as it has been called. Witness Lev Manovich and the Software Studies Initiative’s use of ‘[http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/Manovich_trending_paper.pdf digital image analysis and new visualization techniques]’ to study ‘20,000 pages of Science and Popular Science magazines… published between 1872-1922, 780 paintings by van Gogh, 4535 covers of Time magazine (1923-2009) and one million manga pages’ (Manovich, 2011), and Dan Cohen and Fred Gibb’s text mining of ‘[http://www.dancohen.org/2010/10/04/searching-for-the-victorians/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DanCohen+%28Dan+Cohen%29&utm_content=Google+Reader the 1,681,161 books that were published in English in the UK in the long nineteenth century]’ (Cohen, 2010). <br><br> ''What Digitize Me, Visualize Me, Search Me'' endeavours to show is that such data-focused transformations in research can be seen as part of a major alteration in the status and nature of knowledge. It is an alteration that, according to the philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, has been taking place since at least the 1950s, and involves nothing less than a shift away from a concern with questions of what is right and just, and toward a concern with legitimating power by optimizing the social system’s performance in instrumental, functional terms. This shift has significant consequences for our idea of knowledge. Indeed, for Lyotard: <br><br> </div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br><br> <youtube>PH54cp2ggFk</youtube> <br><br> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>One of the explicit aims of the Living Books About Life series is to provide a&nbsp; point of interrogation and contestation, as well as connection and translation, between the humanities and the sciences (partly to avoid slipping into 'scientism'). Accordingly, this introduction to ''Digitize Me, Visualize Me, Search Me'' takes as its starting point the so-called ‘computational turn’ to data-intensive scholarship in the humanities. <br><br> The phrase ‘[http://www.thecomputationalturn.com/ the computational turn]’ has been adopted to refer to the process whereby techniques and methodologies drawn from (in this case) ''computer science'' and related fields – including science visualization, interactive information visualization, image processing, network analysis, statistical data analysis, and the management, manipulation and mining of data – are being used to produce new ways of approaching and understanding texts in the humanities; what is sometimes thought of as ‘the digital humanities’. The concern in the main has been with either digitizing ‘born analog’ humanities texts and artifacts (e.g. making annotated editions of the art and writing of [http://www.blakearchive.org/blake/ William Blake] available to scholars and researchers online), or gathering together ‘born digital’ humanities texts and artifacts (videos, websites, games, photography, sound recordings, 3D data), and then taking complex and often extremely large-scale data analysis techniques from computing science and related fields and applying them to these humanities texts and artifacts - to this ‘big data’, as it has been called. Witness Lev Manovich and the Software Studies Initiative’s use of ‘[http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/Manovich_trending_paper.pdf digital image analysis and new visualization techniques]’ to study ‘20,000 pages of Science and Popular Science magazines… published between 1872-1922, 780 paintings by van Gogh, 4535 covers of Time magazine (1923-2009) and one million manga pages’ (Manovich, 2011), and Dan Cohen and Fred Gibb’s text mining of ‘[http://www.dancohen.org/2010/10/04/searching-for-the-victorians/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DanCohen+%28Dan+Cohen%29&utm_content=Google+Reader the 1,681,161 books that were published in English in the UK in the long nineteenth century]’ (Cohen, 2010). <br><br> ''What Digitize Me, Visualize Me, Search Me'' endeavours to show is that such data-focused transformations in research can be seen as part of a major alteration in the status and nature of knowledge. It is an alteration that, according to the philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, has been taking place since at least the 1950s, and involves nothing less than a shift away from a concern with questions of what is right and just, and toward a concern with legitimating power by optimizing the social system’s performance in instrumental, functional terms. This shift has significant consequences for our idea of knowledge. Indeed, for Lyotard: <br><br> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><blockquote>The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation. It can fit into the new channels, and become operational, only if learning is translated into quantities of information. We can predict that anything in the constituted body of knowledge that is not translatable in this way will be abandoned and that the direction of new research will be dictated by the possibility of its eventual results being translatable into computer language. The ‘producers’ and users of knowledge must now, and will have to, possess the means of translating into these language whatever they want to invent or learn. Research on translating machines is already well advanced. Along with the hegemony of computers comes a certain logic, and therefore a certain set of prescriptions determining which statements are accepted as ‘knowledge’ statements. (1986: 4)</blockquote> </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><blockquote>The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation. It can fit into the new channels, and become operational, only if learning is translated into quantities of information. We can predict that anything in the constituted body of knowledge that is not translatable in this way will be abandoned and that the direction of new research will be dictated by the possibility of its eventual results being translatable into computer language. The ‘producers’ and users of knowledge must now, and will have to, possess the means of translating into these language whatever they want to invent or learn. Research on translating machines is already well advanced. Along with the hegemony of computers comes a certain logic, and therefore a certain set of prescriptions determining which statements are accepted as ‘knowledge’ statements. (1986: 4)</blockquote> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br><br> In particular, ''Digitize Me, Visualize Me, Search Me'' suggests that the turn in the humanities toward data-driven scholarship, science visualization, statistical data analysis, etc. can be placed alongside all those discourses that are being put forward at the moment - in both the academy and society - in the name of greater openness, transparency, efficiency and accountability. <br><br> <br><br> '''Open Access ''' <br><br> The open access movement provides a case in point. Witness [http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fdownloads%2fOA_What_are_the_economic_benefits_-_a_comparison_of_UK-NL-DK__FINAL_logos.pdf John Houghton’s] 2009 comparison of the benefits of OA for the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark, which claims to show that the open access academic publishing model, in which peer reviewed scholarly research and publications are made available for free online to all those who are able to access the Internet, is actually the most cost effective mechanism for scholarly publishing. Others meanwhile have detailed the increases open access publishing enables in the amount of material that can be published, searched and stored, in the number of people who can access it, in the impact of that material, the range of its distribution, and in the speed and ease of reporting and information retrieval. The following announcement, posted on the BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) list in March 2010, is fairly typical in this respect: <br><br> </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br><br> In particular, ''Digitize Me, Visualize Me, Search Me'' suggests that the turn in the humanities toward data-driven scholarship, science visualization, statistical data analysis, etc. can be placed alongside all those discourses that are being put forward at the moment - in both the academy and society - in the name of greater openness, transparency, efficiency and accountability. <br><br> <br><br> '''Open Access ''' <br><br> The open access movement provides a case in point. Witness [http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fdownloads%2fOA_What_are_the_economic_benefits_-_a_comparison_of_UK-NL-DK__FINAL_logos.pdf John Houghton’s] 2009 comparison of the benefits of OA for the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark, which claims to show that the open access academic publishing model, in which peer reviewed scholarly research and publications are made available for free online to all those who are able to access the Internet, is actually the most cost effective mechanism for scholarly publishing. Others meanwhile have detailed the increases open access publishing enables in the amount of material that can be published, searched and stored, in the number of people who can access it, in the impact of that material, the range of its distribution, and in the speed and ease of reporting and information retrieval. The following announcement, posted on the BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) list in March 2010, is fairly typical in this respect: <br><br> </div></td></tr>
</table>Joannahttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5508&oldid=prevGaryhall at 09:15, 19 November 20132013-11-19T09:15:41Z<p></p>
<a href="https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5508&oldid=5507">Show changes</a>Garyhallhttps://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5507&oldid=prevGaryhall: /* Gary Hall */2013-11-19T09:13:06Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Gary Hall</span></span></p>
<a href="https://livingbooksaboutlife.org/wiki/index.php?title=Open_science/Introduction&diff=5507&oldid=5504">Show changes</a>Garyhall