Abstract
AbstractBiodiversity informatics produces global biodiversity knowledge through the collection and analysis of biodiversity data using informatics techniques. To do so, biodiversity informatics relies upon data accrual, standardization, transferability, openness, and “invisible” infrastructure. What biodiversity informatics mean to society, however, cannot be adequately understood without recognizing what organizes biodiversity data. Using insights from science and technology studies, we story the organizing “visions” behind the growth of biodiversity informatics infrastructures in Sweden—an early adopter of digital technologies and significant contributor to global biodiversity data—through interviews, scientific literature, governmental reports and popular publications. This case story discloses the organizational formation of Swedish biodiversity informatics infrastructures from the 1970s to the present day, illustrating how situated perspectives or “visions” shaped the philosophies, directions and infrastructures of its biodiversity informatics communities. Specifically, visions related to scientific progress and species loss, their institutionalization, and the need to negotiate external interests from governmental organizations led to unequal development across multiple infrastructures that contribute differently to biodiversity knowledge. We argue that such difference highlights that the social and organizational hurdles for combining biodiversity data are just as significant as the technological challenges and that the seemingly inconsequential organizational aspects of its infrastructure shape what biodiversity data can be brought together, modelled and visualised.
Funder
Horizon 2020
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Social Sciences (miscellaneous),Education
Reference108 articles.
1. Anhalt-Depies, Christine, Jennifer L. Stenglein, Benjamin Zuckerberg, Philip A. Townsend, and Adena R. Rissman. 2019. Tradeoffs and tools for data quality, privacy, transparency, and trust in citizen science. Biological Conservation 238: 108195.
2. Arbuckle, T., S. Schröder, V. Steinhage, and D. Wittmann. 2001. Biodiversity informatics in action: identification and monitoring of bee species using ABIS. In Proc. 15th Int. Symp. Informatics for Environmental Protection, vol. 1, pp. 425–430. ETH Zurich.
3. Aronsson, M., J. Nilsson, and A. Tanograflind. 2013. “Nya Artportalen.” Fauna och Flora: en populärbiologisk tidskrift. Temanummer: Arter på Webben. Vol.: 108:2. ArtDatabanken. P. 2–8.
4. ArtDatabanken 2015. “ArtDatabankens verksamhetsberättelse 2014.” Ed. Johan Samuelsson. ArtDatabanken SLU, Uppsala. ISBN: 978-91-87853-11-1.
5. ArtDatabanken 2017. Swedish LifeWatch – a national e-infrastructure for biodiversity data. Summary report 2010–2016. ArtDatabanken SLU.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献