Collaboratieve interpretatie als instrument voor bewonersparticipatie | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 28, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1385-1535
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7324

Abstract

Abstract

Developments in science and society show that there is a change from individual analyses and truths to more collective processes. Citizen science and participatory research play an increasing role in these processes. The cases of Open Online Research and Panel show how the translation from science to citizens could occur. It shows that citizen science is not only an instrument through which society contributes to science, but that this participatory interpretation tool itself can also make a meaningful contribution to society.

The shift from individual to collective interpretation requires new, innovative forms of participation in both social science and society. In this article we discuss the current criteria for the quality of interpretations and apply them to participatory interpretation. We embrace the notion that different perspectives and interpretations are of higher importance than classical ideas on science. Criteria of quality are in this case not about quantity and not even always about the quality or thoroughness of an interpretation, but about the variety of interpretations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2023.3.005.OOIJ
2023-10-01
2024-02-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agazzi, E. (2016). Scientific Realism Within Perspectivism and Perspectivism Within Scientific Realism. Axiomathes, 26(4), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9304-4
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bazeley, P. (2017). Integrating Analyses in Mixed Methods Research. SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berghofer, P. (2020). Scientific perspectivism in the phenomenological tradition. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00294-w
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bröer, C., Moerman, G., Wester, J. C., Rubinstein, L., Schmidt, L., Stoopendaal, A., Kruiderink, N., Hansen, C., & Sjølie, H. (2016). Open Online Research: Developing Software and Method for Collaborative Interpretation. FQS, 17(3), 27.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EmilyMiltenburg, BramGeurkink, SimonTunderman, DaanBeekers, & Josjeden Ridder. (2022). Burgerperspectieven 2022 | bericht 2. SCP (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fagan, M. B. (2020). Explanation, Interdisciplinarity, and Perspectives Melinda Bonnie Fagan. In M.Massimi & C. D.McCoy, Understanding perspectivism: Scientific challenges and methodological prospects. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hammersley, M. (2023). Are There Assessment Criteria for Qualitative Findings? A Challenge Facing Mixed Methods Research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-24.1.3935
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Massimi, M., & McCoy, C. D. (Eds.). (2020). Understanding perspectivism: Scientific challenges and methodological prospects. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Rijshouwer, E., Uitermark, J., & De Koster, W. (2023). Wikipedia: A self-organizing bureaucracy. Information, Communication & Society, 26(7), 1285–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1994633
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Rovers, E. (2022). Nuishetaanons: Oproep tot echte democratie. De Correspondent BV.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Törnberg, P. (2022). How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(42), e2207159119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207159119
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2023.3.005.OOIJ
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error