Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32053062›Full record

ArticleSocial studies of science2020

Caring for data: Value creation in a data-intensive research laboratory.

Clémence Pinel, Barbara Prainsack, Christopher McKevitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social studies of science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Staying with the trouble of networks.Frontiers in big data · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Open science, data sharing and solidarity: who benefits?History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. When more data means better results: Abundance and scarcity in research collaborations in epigenetics.Social sciences information. Information sur les sciences sociales · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Clémence PinelCentre for Medical Science and Technology Studies, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3874-0373
Barbara PrainsackDepartment of Political Science, University of Vienna, Austria.
Christopher McKevittSchool of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King's College London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drawing upon ethnographic observations of staff working within a research laboratory built around research and clinical data from twins, this article analyzes practices underlying the production and maintenance of a research database. While critical data studies have discussed different forms of 'data work' through which data are produced and turned into effective research resources, in this paper we foreground a specific form of data work, namely the affective and attentive relationships that humans build with data. Building on STS and feminist scholarship that highlights the importance of care in scientific work, we capture this specific form of data work as care. Treating data as relational entities, we discuss a set of caring practices that staff employ to produce and maintain their data, as well as the hierarchical and institutional arrangements within which these caring practices take place. We show that through acts of caring, that is, through affective and attentive engagements, researchers build long-term relationships with the data they help produce, and feel responsible for its flourishing and growth. At the same time, these practices of care - which we found to be gendered and valued differently from other practices within formal and informal reward systems - help to make data valuable for the institution. In this manner, care for data is an important practice of valuation and valorisation within data-intensive research that has so far received little explicit attention in scholarship and professional research practice.

Indexed as

ScienceSociologyTechnologyDatabases as TopicResearchcaredatadata-intensive research‘omics’ researchrelational ontologyvaluation

Identifiers

PMID32053062
PMCPMC7238504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.