Is the Gamification of Scientific Work a Good Idea?

2022 ◽  
pp. 467-482
Author(s):  
Stéphane Le Lay ◽  
Jean Frances

This chapter shows that, contrary to what some researchers claim, setting up the conditions for a “playful environment” is not so simple, in particular when it comes to organizing a new competition for the popularization of science (MT180®). In fact, we will see that popularization does not fit so easily into the “playful environment” desired by the organizers due to the gamified nature of the approach, which gradually colonizes the initial desire to present one's scientific work and pushes some participants to exaggerate their results in order to go as far as possible in the competition. It is therefore feared that the gamification of scientific work, while compatible with neoliberal expectations, will in fact lead to the production of bad science. The question then arises as to whether the need to turn researchers into effective communicators with a view to building the “knowledge society” advocated by international institutions can be achieved through gamified approaches, with the risk of creating an ever-greater distance between (real) scientific knowledge and citizens.

Author(s):  
Anjan Chakravartty

This chapter develops the notion of degrees of metaphysical inference, giving content to a number of widely used but only vaguely specified metaphors regarding what it could mean to “naturalize” metaphysical inferences by “grounding” them in scientific knowledge, and what it could mean to “derive” ontological conclusions from scientific work, or use such work as a “constraint” on ontological theorizing. It examines the prospects of demarcating scientific ontology from non-scientific, philosophical ontologically, the nature of a priori presuppositions and inferences and their possible roles in this demarcation, and the idea of naturalizing metaphysical inferences. In conclusion, it considers whether there is, in fact, anything like an objective distinction to be made between genuinely theorizing and merely speculating about ontology.


Author(s):  
Francisco Gilson Rebouças Porto Junior ◽  
Edson De Sousa Oliveira

O artigo discute o projeto de criação e implantação do Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Tocantins, RIUFT. O objetivo é agrupar, armazenar, organizar, preservar, recuperar e divulgar a produção científica e acadêmica da UFT com vistas à gestão da informação cientifica, aumentando a visibilidade e o prestígio da instituição em âmbito nacional e internacional. Busca disponibilizar à comunidade universitária um espaço para armazenar e preservar a informação produzida na Instituição e ao mesmo tempo promover a transparência dos gastos públicos e apoio às atividades de pesquisa e criação do conhecimento científico no âmbito da UFT. A implantação do RIUFT será mediante adesão ao edital do Ibict, e será desenvolvido em duas fases: planejamento e implementação. Este estudo aborda também um histórico das ações implantadas pelo Ibict em prol do movimento de acesso livre ao conhecimento científico, bem como uma breve revisão de literatura sobre a sociedade do conhecimento e as tecnologias de informação e comunicação. Como técnica de pesquisa, adotamos uma abordagem qualitativa, utilizando-se de revisão bibliográfica e pesquisa exploratória. O método de coleta de dados adotado foi a partir de informações fornecidas pela universidade e seus programas de pós-graduação. Palavras-chave: Repositório Institucional; Comunicação científica; Acesso aberto. ABSTRACTThe article discusses the project of creation and implementation of the Institutional Repository of the Federal University of Tocantins, RIUFT. The goal is to gather, store, organize, preserve, retrieve and disseminate scientific and academic production of UFT with a view to the management of scientific information, increasing the visibility and prestige of the institution in the national and international levels. Search available to the university community a space to store and preserve the information produced in the institution and at the same time promoting the transparency of public spending and support for research activities and creation of scientific knowledge within the UFT. The implementation of RIUFT is through adherence to Ibict the notice, and will be developed in two phases: planning and implementation. This study also addresses a history of actions implemented by Ibict in favor of open access movement to scientific knowledge as well as a brief literature review of the knowledge society and information and communication technologies. As a research technique, we adopted a qualitative approach, using literature review and exploratory research. The data collection method adopted was based on information provided by the university and its graduate programs. Keywords: Institutional Repository; scientific communication; open access


Author(s):  
Сергей Александрович Лебедев ◽  
Сергей Николаевич Коськов

В статье излагается содержание двух базовых концепций неклассической философии и методологии науки: конвенционалистской и консенсуалистской теории природы научного знания и научной истины. Каждая из них является альтернативой двум основным парадигмам классической философии и методологии науки: эмпиризму (позитивизму) и рационализму. С точки зрения конвенционализма научное знание не есть ни описание чистого опыта, ни его обобщение. Но оно не является также и результатом некой априорной интуиции и чистого разума. Согласно конвенционализму научное знание - это система доказательной информации, исходные принципы которой имеют характер условных, конвенциональных истин. Отсюда следует, что любая истина в науке не категорична, а условна и имеет форму «если, то». Консенсуалистская концепция природы научного знания возникла в философии науки второй половины XX в. Она была, с одной стороны, обобщением конвенционализма, а с другой - его отрицанием. Если в конвенционализме основным субъектом научного познания является отдельный ученый, то в консенсуалистской эпистемологии таким субъектом является социальный субъект - научное сообщество. Научное познание имеет принципиально коллективный характер как в плане его получения в силу разделения научного труда, так и в плане его легитимации и оценки. Последние операции всегда являются результатом консенсуса научного сообщества. The article examines the content of two basic conceptions of non-classical philosophy and methodology of science: the conventionalist and consensual theory of the nature of scientific knowledge. Each of them is an alternative to the two main paradigms of classical philosophy and the methodology of science: empiricism (positivism) and rationalism. From the point of view of conventionalism, scientific knowledge is neither a description of pure experience nor a generalization of it. But it is also not the result of some a priori intuition and pure reason. According to conventionalism, scientific knowledge is a system of evidence-based information, the initial principles of which have the character of conditional, conventional truths. It follows that any truth in science is not categorical, but conditional and has the form «if, then». The consensual concept of the nature of scientific knowledge emerged in the philosophy of science of the second half of the twentieth century. It was, on the one hand, a generalization of conventionalism; on the other, a negation of it. If in conventionalism the main subject of scientific knowledge is an individual scientist, then in consensual epistemology such a subject is a social subject - the scientific community. Scientific knowledge has a fundamentally collective character, both in terms of its acquisition by virtue of the division of scientific work, and in terms of its legitimization and evaluation. The latest operations are always the result of a consensus of the scientific community.


1965 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Layton

The concept of popularization, in the present context, implies the existence of a reading public interested in science, together with a corpus of scientific knowledge, part of which, in its range and complexity, was outside the limits of the general understanding.


Author(s):  
Luiza Beth Nunes Alonso ◽  
Jean Sallantin ◽  
Edilson Ferneda ◽  
Dominique Luzeaux

This article focuses on the efficiency of scientific knowledge involved in the context of managing a particular socio-environmental as that composed by Amazon. In a first part, we introduce the actual tools used to create and disseminate knowledge among scientists and to stakeholders. In the second part, we give a structural framework, concerning the co-construction of an interdisciplinary scientific knowledge on a specific geographical region. This structural framework, which is as mathematical object "free of context", provides a contextual efficiency of scientific work when it combines multi-disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-171
Author(s):  
Martin Rohde

This paper historicizes the idea of “popular science” in the Ukrainian academic discourse in relation to contemporary approaches to “national science” (as “science proper”) and places special emphasis on the introduction of regular scientific lectures to public audiences in early twentieth century Habsburg Galicia. The Shevchenko Scientific Society was the central Ukrainian association of scholars and scientists at the time. Male-dominated, and increasingly dedicated to “Ukrainoznavstvo” (“Ukrainian studies”), the Shevchenko Scientific Society paid little attention to the popularization of scientific research. The Petro Mohyla Society for Ukrainian Scientific Lectures emerged in reaction to the Shevchenko Society. Its goal was to expand public awareness of the scientific work, and its members proceeded to organize regular public lectures all over Galicia between 1909 and 1914. This paper analyzes such popularization of science, propagated by the Petro Mohyla Society, and examines the lecture audiences with regard to their location, gender, and respective interests.


2009 ◽  
Vol 08 (01) ◽  
pp. L01
Author(s):  
Danielle Pereira Cavalcanti ◽  
Cecília C. B. Cavalcanti

The Internet is by far the most intensely used communication tool of today and the main channel of interaction in the globalized world. This technology has opened up a whole new area for the interaction of knowledge: cyberspace, where information is always present and continuously changing. The interactivity that characterizes the virtual media together with the interactive modules developed by science centers and museums make the Internet a whole new space for the popularization of science. In order to stimulate dialog between science and society, Espaço Ciência Viva has decided to employ the Internet to divulge and to popularize scientific knowledge by bringing debates about the advances of science to the daily lives of people. To this end, its website was remodeled, which led to an increase of up to 600% in the number of visitors.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Dipendra Raj Pandeya

<p><span>Our Science and scientific explorations are integral components in the process of research and development. Therefore, keeping abreast of recent scientific knowledge and development is an imper proceativess of a professional scientist. Scientific literature such as publications are among the most popular ways to update and up-skill one’s knowledge in a particular area. One can either become a consumer of scientific publication as a reader or s/he could also contribute to the body of literature through academic publications in quality peer-reviewed journals. </span></p><p><span>Having contributed to academic writing as an author is like your passport to your scientific community, not only to share your knowledge but also to gain professional recognition. Your contribution to publication also helps disseminate your new and foremost findings or techniques among scientific and academic communities. In order to be an accomplished scientist, one needs to have good scientific writing skills and be able to express the scientific knowledge effectively and efficiently to the scientific/academic community. </span></p><p><span>Before you start writing, it is important that you should be aware of the main goals of your publication. Your research should answer the relevant questions of the involved field and should arouse interest in the readers. Furthermore, the researcher should also know whether the research and findings of the work are publishable at the given point or not. If the answers are ticked off positively, then the researcher can start preparing the manuscript. Most research papers are based upon the IMRaD format. The word IMRaD stands for the initial letters of the words Introduction (I), Methods (M), Results (R), and Discussion (D). The Introduction describes the scope and purpose of the research in the light of recent information on the existing research; the Methods explain how the analysis was done; the Results section reports your audience to know what the investigation showed; and the Discussion section should explain the significance of the new information provided by your study and suggestions for future studies. . The IMRaD structure has been followed by a progressively increasing number of academic journals and has been the basis for most researches. It is a very effective approach as it facilitates the literature review and lets the readers understand the research more logically.</span></p><p><span>Good scientific writing with the methodical approach is not the only criteria for getting published in scientific journals. For publishing in a particular journal, it's very important to follow the author guidelines. Every journal has a particular format of writing and it is expected that the particular journal is going to publish the articles in the same particular format. This is very important for the journal to be consistent in all the publications. </span></p><p><span>In addition, writing a good research article can seem challenging at first, however, if a researcher plans it properly, the challenge becomes interesting. Your research may conclude with meaningful answers to the unanswered questions in a particular scientific field and serve as a stimulus for further studies in the future. Well-written papers get published more frequently and can easily attract the attention of the readers. They are highly read, recommended as well as cited. Reviewers are more willing to review a well written research article and give favorable comments to improve the quality of the study. The authors should make every effort to implement the proper use of correct grammar. Poor language quality, including errors in grammar, spelling mistakes, typographical errors could delay the publication or lead to outright rejection of the paper.</span></p><p><span>Ultimately, the readers of your scientific manuscript are your primary examiners. They are going to examine the details of all the appropriate components of your study: purpose, background and rationale, strategies, results|, discussion and conclusions. . The elements of good scientific publishing must certainly be clear, precise, and logical. Finally, scientific work is incomplete until the results are disseminated to the larger community. Thus, effective scientific writing will create information exchange, to improve knowledge progress, ideas and improve your colleague's future work. </span></p><div><span><br /></span></div>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document