This essay presents data artifacts that accompany the journal article "Changing debates and shifting landscapes in science studies: Exploring how graduate students with varied backgrounds think about the role of value-judgments in science" published by Engaging Science, Technology and Society (ESTS).
Cite this dataset:
Ramachandran, Aishwarya, Jerry Achar, Georgia Green, Brynley Hanson-Wright, Sophie Leiter, and Gunilla Öberg. 2022. “Changing Debates and Shifting Landscapes in Science Studies: Exploring How Graduate Students with Varied Backgrounds Think About the Role of Value-Judgments in Science.” Text. Version 1. Distributed by Engaging Science, Technology, and Society. STS Infrastructures (Platform for Experimental Collaborative Ethnography). https://n2t.net/ark:/81416/p4g01k.
Essay created by:
ESTS Open Data Editor Tim Schütz and ESTS Associate Editor Angela Okune
A broad movement in the scholarly community is pushing towards data sharing or “Open Data,” particularly in the natural sciences and medicine. Recognizing that there are compelling reasons why scholars in STS and related fields are wary of data sharing and careful to protect their work, the ESTS Editorial Collective (EC) has pursued experiments towards establishing a publishing infrastructure for open data with the goal of better understanding the possible benefits for the STS community from data sharing and the role that a scholarly-run journal like ESTS could play in realizing such opportunities. Our approach develops from a commitment to recognize and foster the data relations we most value as a heterogeneous community of scholars and interlocutors. We have partnered with STS Infrastructures, an instance of the Platform for Experimental Collaborative Ethnography (PECE) designed and built by STS scholars, to understand what “Open Data” can mean in/ for STS, and develop norms, practices, and infrastructures that match the kinds of data that we work with. Read more about our understanding and approach to open data. Explore all ESTS published data.
There are five appendices provided as source data for this paper. The first (Appendix A) includes a detailed schedule of each of the classes during the semester, the dates on which they happened, the in-class activities, assignments, readings, and preparation required for each class. It also includes a description of the assignments and course readings. Appendix B includes all three interview schedules, and Appendix C includes tables outlining more specific about the readings assigned each week, and a description of the participants’ final assignment topics. Appendix D includes a description of the research participants’ experiences coming into the course, and their changing views of science and science studies. We believe that these materials will provide important additional context to, and elaboration of the results discussed in the paper, and may also serve as a starting point for readers who may be interested in finding potential readings from the philosophy of science which may be usefully incorporated into an interdisciplinary seminar. Readers who are involved in teaching themes from science studies to scientists or are interested in introducing science studies material into a science classroom or other learning spaces, may find this material useful.
The appendices do not include a complete transcript of the interviews from each participant due to privacy reasons—parts of the interview include personal information which the authors preferred not to be published. Furthermore, one of the interviews was with a participant who was not included in later drafts of this paper. The interview schedules were developed in mid-late September 2020, when the first author was applying for behavioral ethics approval at her home institution. They were prepared with the understanding that the schedules for subsequent interviews would likely be updated after the first round of interviews in order to build off participants comments and insights. The first round of interviews was conducted on Zoom in October 2020, while the second round was also conducted on Zoom in January 2021. An additional three interviews were conducted after this, partially in response to reviewer comments.
In earlier drafts of this paper, the materials from Appendix D were included in the results section, but after the first round of revisions, the first and last author of the study decided to supplement data about the participants’ experiences with information about their own experiences teaching and attending the course and writing up this paper. As the authors did not want to lose the richness of the quotes highlighting the participants’ early experiences in the course, a decision was made to move this material to an Appendix. Any further publications using this data should notify the authors of this paper using the email address aishwarya.ramachandran@protonmail.com.