Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T23:46:09.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Participation and Objectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2022

Inkeri Koskinen Open the ORCID record for Inkeri Koskinen [Opens in a new window]
Inkeri Koskinen*
Affiliation:
Practical Philosophy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many philosophers of science have recently argued that extra-academic participation in scientific knowledge production does not threaten scientific objectivity. Quite the contrary: Citizen science, participatory projects, transdisciplinary research, and other similar endeavours can even increase the objectivity of the research conducted. Simultaneously, researchers working in fields in which such participation is common have expressed worries about various ways in which it can result in biases. In this article I clarify how these arguments and worries can be compared, and how extra-academic participation can both increase and threaten the objectivity of the research conducted.

Type
Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 413 - 432
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexandrova, Anna. 2018. “Can the Science of Well-Being Be Objective?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (2):421–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, Annette. 1986. “Trust and Antitrust.” Ethics 96 (2):231–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedessem, Baptiste, and Ruphy, Stéphanie. 2020. “Citizen Science and Scientific Objectivity: Mapping Out Epistemic Risks and Benefits.” Perspectives on Science 28 (5):630–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin B., and Kukla, Rebecca. 2017. “The Geography of Epistemic Risk.” In Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, edited by Kevin, C. Elliott and Richards, Ted, 215–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, Tomas J., Bate, Amanda E.s, Lefcheck, Jonathan S., Hill, Nicole A., Thomson, Russell J., Edgar, Graham J., Stuart-Smith, Rick D., et al. 2014. “Statistical Solutions for Error and Bias in Global Citizen Science Datasets.” Biological Conservation 173:144–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonney, Rick, Ballard, Heidi, Jordan, Rebecca, McCallie, Ellen, Phillips, Tina, Shirk, Jennifer, and Wilderman, Candie C.. 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.Google Scholar
Bornmann, Lutz. 2012. “Measuring the Societal Impact of Research.” EMBO Reports 13 (8):673–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, Kathrin, and Schultz, Susanne. 2010. “'… a Certain Amount of Engineering Involved': Constructing the Public in Participatory Governance Arrangements.” Public Understanding of Science 19 (4):403–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Matthew J. 2019. “Is Science Really Value Free and Objective? From Objectivity to Scientific Integrity.” In What Is Scientific Knowledge?, edited by McCain, Kevin and Kampourakis, Kostas, 226–42. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiani, and Neresini, Federico. 2008. “Science and Public Participation.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward, J. Hackett et al., 449–72. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, Robert. 2019. “Neurodiversity Theory and Its Discontents: Autism, Schizophrenia, and the Social Model of Disability.” In The Bloomsbury Companion to Philosophy of Psychiatry, edited by Tekin, Şerife and Bluhm, Robyn, 371–90. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Cohn, Jeffrey P. 2008. “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?” BioScience 58 (3):192–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Harry, and Evans, Robert. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32 (2):235–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, Bill, and Kothari, Uma. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Galison, Peter. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone.Google Scholar
Dickinson Janis, L., Zuckerberg, Benjamin, and Bonter, David N.. 2010. “Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41:149–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67 (4):559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2004. “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity.” Synthese 138 (3):453–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2005. “Inserting the Public into Science.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by Maassen, Sabine and Weingart, Peter, 24:153–70. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dodrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John. 2007. “Fact and Value.” In Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions, edited by Kincaid, Harold, Dupré, John, and Wylie, Alison, 24–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eigi, Jaana. Forthcoming. “Why Philosophers of Science Should Care about the Problems of the ‘Pure Public.'”Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C., and Rosenberg, Jon. 2019. “Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4 (1):1–9.Google Scholar
Epstein, Steven. 1998. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Leydesdorff, Loet. 1995. “The Triple Helix—University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development.” EASST Review 14 (1):14–19.Google Scholar
Fernández Pinto, Manuela. 2021. “Science and Industry Funding.” In Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science, edited by Ludwig, David et al., 164–73. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Arthur. 1998. “The Viewpoint of No-One in Particular.” Proceedings and Addresses of the APA 72 (2):9–20.Google Scholar
Fletcher-Watson, Sue, Adams, Jon, Brook, Kabie, Charman, Tony, Crane, Laura, Cusack, James, Leekam, Susan, et al. 2019. “Making the Future Together: Shaping Autism Research through Meaningful Participation.” Autism 23 (4):943–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frickel, Scott, Gibbon, Sahra, Howard, Jeff, Kempner, Joanna, Ottinger, Gwen, and Hess, David J.. 2010. “Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Setting.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 35 (4):444–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Ravetz, Jerome R.. 1993. “Science for the Post-normal Age.” Futures 25 (7):739–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, Michael, Limoges, Camille, Nowotny, Helga, Schwartzman, Simon, Scott, Peter, and Trow, Martin. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2015. Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauswald, Rico. 2021. “The Epistemic Effects of Close Entanglements between Research Fields and Activist Movements.” Synthese 198:597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, David, Breyman, Steve, Campbell, Nancy, and Martin, Brian. 2008. “Science, Technology, and Social Movements.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward, J. Hackett et al., 473–98. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hickey, Samuel, and Mohan, Giles. 2004. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation. Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude, et al. 2008. “The Emergence of Transdisciplinarity as a Form of Research.” In Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, edited by Hadorn, Gertrude Hirsch et al., 19–42. S.l.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett, and Elliott, Kevin C.. 2018. “The Promise and Perils of Industry-Funded Science.” Philosophy Compass 13 (11):e12544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett, and Geislar, Sally. 2018. “Sex Drugs and Corporate Ventriloquism: How to Evaluate Science Policies Intended to Manage Industry-Funded Bias.” Philosophy of Science 85 (5):869–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Jeff. 2006. “The Rise of Crowdsourcing.” Wired 14. https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/ Google Scholar
Hughes, Jonathan A. 2021. “Does the Heterogeneity of Autism Undermine the Neurodiversity Paradigm?” Bioethics 35 (1):47–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaggar, Alison M. 2004. “Feminist Politics and Epistemology: The Standpoint of Women.” In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, edited by Harding, Sandra, 55–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Janack, Marianne. 2002. “Dilemmas of Objectivity.” Social Epistemology 16 (3):267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41 (3):223–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2017. “Science and Democracy.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Felt, Ulrike et al., 259–88. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kimura, Aya H., and Kinchy, Abby. 2016. “Citizen Science: Probing the Virtues and Contexts of Participatory Research.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2:331–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Koskinen, I. 2011. “Seemingly Similar Beliefs: A Case Study on Relativistic Research Practices.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (1):84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri. 2014. “Critical Subjects: Participatory Research Needs to Make Room for Debate.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (6):733–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri. 2015. “Researchers Building Nations: Under What Conditions Can Overtly Political Research Be Objective?” In Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki, edited by Mäki, Uskali, Votsis, Ioannis, Ruphy, Stéphanie, and Schurz, Gerhard, 129–40. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri. 2020. “Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71 (4):1187–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri. 2021. “Objectivity in Contexts: Withholding Epistemic Judgement as a Strategy for Mitigating Collective Bias.” Synthese 199:211–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri, and Mäki, Uskali. 2016. “Extra-academic Transdisciplinarity and Scientific Pluralism: What Might They Learn from One Another?” The European Journal of Philosophy of Science 6 (3):419–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri, and Rolin, Kristina. 2019. “Scientific/Intellectual Movements Remedying Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Indigenous Studies.” Philosophy of Science 86 (5):1052–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosmala, Margaret, Wiggins, Andrea, Swanson, Alexandra, and Simmons, Brooke. 2016. “Assessing Data Quality in Citizen Science.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14 (10):551–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtulmus, Faik. 2021. “The Democratization of Science.” In Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science, edited by Ludwig, David et al., 145–54. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leventon, Julia, et al. 2016. “An Applied Methodology for Stakeholder Identification in Transdisciplinary Research.” Sustainability Science 11:763–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1996. “Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy.” In Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science, edited by Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack, 39–58. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 2001. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Maassen, Sabine, and Weingart, Peter. 2005. “What’s New in Scientific Advice to Politics?” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by Maassen, Sabine and Weingart, Peter, 24:1–19. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montuschi, Eleonora. 2003. The Objects of Social Science. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Musschenga, Albert W., van der Steen, Wim J., and Ho, Vincent K. Y.. 2010. “The Business of Drug Research: A Mixed Blessing.” In The Commodification of Academic Research, edited by Radder, Hans, 110–31. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., and Ramaswamy, Venkatram. 2000. “Co-Opting Customer Competence.” Harvard Business Review 78: 79–87.Google Scholar
“Rise of the Citizen Scientist.” 2015. Nature 524:265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, J., and Kitcher, P. 2010. “Biomedical Research, Neglected Diseases, and Well-Ordered Science.” Theoria 24 (3):263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolin, Kristina. 2009. “Scientific Knowledge: A Stakeholder Theory.” In The Social Sciences and Democracy, edited by Van Bouwel, Jeroen, 62–80. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 1992. “On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-Epistemic Distinction Useful?” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudner, R. 1953. “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20 (1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seurujärvi-Kari, Irja., and Ulla-Maija, Kulonen (eds.). 1996. Essays on Indigenous Identity and Rights. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, Eric, Martindale, Andrew, and Wylie, Alison. 2021. “Bearing Witness: What Can Archaeology Contribute in an Indian Residential School Context?” In Working with and for Ancestors: Collaboration in the Care and Study of Ancestral Remains, edited by Chelsea, H. Meloche, Spake, Laure, and Katherine, L. Nichols, 21–31. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Solomon, Stephanie. 2009. “Stakeholders or Experts? On the Ambiguous Implications of Public Participation in Science.” In The Social Sciences and Democracy, edited by Van Bouwel, Jeroen, 39–61. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stilgoe, Jack, and Guston, David H.. 2017. “Responsible Research and Innovation.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Felt, Ulrike et al., 853–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stordahl, Vigdis. 2008. “Nation Building through Knowledge Building: The Discourse of Sami Higher Education and Research in Norway.” In Indigenous Peoples: Self-Determination, Knowledge, Indigeneity, edited by Minde, Henry, 249–65. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
Tsosie, Rebecca. 2017. “Indigenous Peoples, Anthropology, and the Legacy of Epistemic Injustice.” In The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice, edited by Ian, J. Kidd, Medina, José, and Pohlhaus, Gaile Jr., 356–69. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, Kyle. 2018. “What Do Indigenous Knowledges Do for Indigenous Peoples?” In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning From Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability, edited by Melissa, K. Nelson and Shilling, Daniel, 57–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, William F. 1990. Participatory Action Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wilholt, Torsten. 2014. “Review of Philip Kitcher: Science in a Democratic Society.” Philosophy of Science 81 (1):165–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2003. “Why Standpoint Matters.” In Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology, edited by Figueroa, Robert and Harding, Sandra, 26–48. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2015. “A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology.” In Objectivity in Science: New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies, edited by Padovani, Flavia, Richardson, Alan, and Jonathan, Y. Tsou, 189–210. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Alison, and Hankinson Nelson, Lynn. 2007. “Coming to Terms with the Values of Science: Insights from Feminist Science Scholarship.” In Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions, edited by Kincaid, Harold, Dupré, John, and Wylie, Alison, 58–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahle, Julie. 2020. “Objective Data Sets in Qualitative Research.” Synthese 199 (1-2):101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar