Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration
By Paul N. Edwards, Matthew S. Mayernik, Archer L. Batcheller, Geoffrey C. Bowker, Christine L. Borgman. Social Studies of Science, 2011
445 citations recorded by the source corpus.
When scientists from two or more disciplines work together on related problems, they often face what we call ‘science friction’. As science becomes more data-driven, collaborative, and interdisciplinary, demand increases for interoperability among data, tools, and services. Metadata – usually viewed simply as ‘data about data’, describing objects such as books, journal articles, or datasets – serve key roles in interoperability. Yet we find that metadata may be a source of friction between scientific collaborators, impeding data sharing. We propose an alternative view of metadata, focusing on its role in an ephemeral process of scientific communication, rather than as an enduring outcome or product. We report examples of highly useful, yet ad hoc, incomplete, loosely structured, and mutable, descriptions of data found in our ethnographic studies of several large projects in the environmental sciences. Based on this evidence, we argue that while metadata products can be powerful resources, usually they must be supplemented with metadata processes. Metadata-as-process suggests the very large role of the ad hoc, the incomplete, and the unfinished in everyday scientific work.
Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems, Information Systems and Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/06fd9101e742ca920c23f3797c19022c13f5a9b5
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Artificial Intelligence
In Information Systems
In Information Systems and Management
Citations in the corpus
- Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context (2016, background): “…shaped to be processed by databases or other informational systems (e.g. Curry, 1998; Dourish, 2014), the organizing principles of data archives (e.g. Edwards et al., 2011) or the relationships between data format, data transmission, and representation (e.g. Dourish, 2015; Galloway, 2004) – is the…”