Post by @brembs@mastodon.social

Very interesting proposal:

"Between these worlds [academia and industry] lies a growing population of practitioners, independent scholars, citizen scientists, individuals working at the intersection of art and science, and retired researchers, who—despite losing formal institutional affiliation—retain deep domain expertise and a continued drive to develop new research ideas. "

Third spaces for science: reimagining research beyond academia and industry:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166223626000925?via%3Dihub

#academicchatter

ScienceDirectScienceDirect

#academicchatter

Bob Corbin

@Shadowfetch@indieweb.social · 2 hours ago

@brembs This hits home. As an indie iOS dev, I often feel like we're running mini R&D labs in our spare rooms. We don't have the institutional backing of big tech, but we have the freedom to build and ship niche experiments that would never survive a corporate roadmap.

Björn Brembs

@brembs@mastodon.social · 2 hours ago

@Shadowfetch

It would be great to have more support for people like you!

Koen Hufkens, PhD

@koen_hufkens@mastodon.social · 2 hours ago

@brembs This is why I've been totally vicious in my comments when it comes to academic gatekeeping of science.

I've run community science projects and have published with "amateur" scientists (who regularly teach abroad at academic institutions, but are happily skipped in broader collaborations).

Seeing this written is not some kind of revelation, this is people finally getting their heads out of their asses.

Koen Hufkens, PhD

@koen_hufkens@mastodon.social · 2 hours ago

@brembs My question in this context, which remains unanswered is: who benefits from this third place (which always existed).

"Third spaces must establish frameworks that balance freedom with credibility..." Freedom for whom?

I might be biased, but my experiences tell me that this will be seen as a cheap source of free scientific labour and ideas.

paulwalk

@paulwalk@mastodon.social · 2 hours ago

@koen_hufkens @brembs

> I might be biased, but my experiences tell me that this will be seen as a cheap source of free scientific labour and ideas.

I understand that this can be exploited, even commercially, but is that necessarily a reason not to do it?

For the "cui bono" question - I guess the "amateur" researcher is literally an amateur - no other reward necessary?

Is this a naive take? 😊

Koen Hufkens, PhD

@koen_hufkens@mastodon.social · 2 hours ago

@paulwalk @brembs What I've seen first hand is that the appeal to passion will be abused. People get responsibilities, but aren't compensated/credited fairly in return.

Time is a zero sum game. The moment someone else dictates your amateur agenda this becomes work - not a hobby.

1 more replies

Björn Brembs

@brembs@mastodon.social · 2 hours ago

@koen_hufkens

Yes! It's a risk that would have to be balanced against the drive of people to really do research on their own.