I started week 3 in a state of muted panic, mostly related to the monster of a 10-page classification scheme I finalized a draft of last Friday. \u00a0On Monday I realized that while this is a really good entry point to the data in its current state it’s completely unusable to classify anything. \u00a05 pages is probably the maximum that any “usable” schema can be. \u00a0I also realized that I needed to get my head up and away from the mess if I was going to return later with any newfound clarity.<\/p>\n
So I refocused my attention on three main areas: understanding how different data policies hold up in court, understanding what different academic circles are really talking about when they talk about “data policy,” and starting to codify my increasing knowledge in a usable way. \u00a0On the first point, I learned that the academic study of law produces really good papers (in retrospect this shouldn’t be surprising given that, for lawyers, eloquence is basically a pre-requisite to success). \u00a0My favorite paper discussed how the current cognitive models of contract law are drastically outdated. \u00a0Essentially, most contract law was written when paper was still a really big deal and the simple act of creating a physical document designated a high level of commitment and intent. \u00a0Since then, the power of paper has been slowly but surely diminishing, beginning with the printing press and moving through the invention of the personal computer up to the ubiquity of Twitter’s 140-character updates. \u00a0But our understanding of contracts has not essentially changed; the process of signing a waiver is essentially the same now as it was 500 years ago in spite of the differences between virtual consent and the signage of a unique physical document with a quill pen.<\/p>\n
In the United States, discussions about data policy are usually associated with different spheres– data policy to deal with financial information, data policy to deal with health care records, data policy that the US Government is required to abide by. \u00a0One interesting area of study with potential implications for PPSR is data policy involved in conducting research with Indigenous populations. \u00a0Discussions about the policies required to conduct research with Indigenous populations center around questions of power, privilege, and ownership– three themes that resonate with PPSR community concerns.<\/p>\n
As a PhD student beginning to think about dissertation work, I’m not always the most practical worker. \u00a0Because of this limitation I’m especially pleased to write about my new focus on producing practical deliverables. \u00a0I spent portions of Thursday and Friday learning PLONE, and the result is that materials on data policy are beginning to populate the Citizen Science Central website<\/a>\u00a0(the exemplars that I promised last week are published here).\u00a0 While these pages are in no way finalized, it’s nice to be able to see a concrete product of my work. \u00a0To that end I’ve also set a (reasonable) goal of writing 20 sentences per working day for the Practitioner Training guide that I’ll need to produce in 3 or 4 weeks time.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I started week 3 in a state of muted panic, mostly related to the monster of a 10-page classification scheme I finalized a draft of last Friday. \u00a0On Monday I realized that while this is a really good entry point to the data in its current state it’s completely unusable Continue reading It’s getting better all the time<\/span>