Thanks for the talk and for adding nuance to this debate! I must say that it dialogues nicely with Hildebrand-Chupp’s talk. It looks to me that a great deal of this debate revolves around what is (descriptively and normatively) the appropriate unit of analysis when talking about (non-epistemic) values influencing a research program or product. Is it the scientist(s) or their environment? (This may be framed as a question of whether we should be individualists or social when designing interventions and reform in scientific practice…) If I understood you well, basically, critics that argue open science is neoliberal are kind of claiming that the movement focuses too much on scientists - while you’re showing how open science is compatible with individualism and more social approaches to scientific practice.
Thanks for the talk and for adding nuance to this debate! I must say that it dialogues nicely with Hildebrand-Chupp’s talk.
It looks to me that a great deal of this debate revolves around what is (descriptively and normatively) the appropriate unit of analysis when talking about (non-epistemic) values influencing a research program or product. Is it the scientist(s) or their environment? (This may be framed as a question of whether we should be individualists or social when designing interventions and reform in scientific practice…)
If I understood you well, basically, critics that argue open science is neoliberal are kind of claiming that the movement focuses too much on scientists - while you’re showing how open science is compatible with individualism and more social approaches to scientific practice.