There is a lot of change happening, and change can be disorienting. But I'm very optimistic about psychology and science more broadly, and very glad that I'm working at this time and not another. /end
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @mcxfrank
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
2 replies 4 retweets 12 likes -
-
Replying to @mcxfrank
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
No worries! Another useful one is:https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/895199957099192320 …
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
And here's something to make us realise why inclusivity and diversity are actually priorities we should have... if we don't attend to these aspects of "open" within our movement/community, we might end up like the open source community.https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-worse-tech-overall/ …
1 reply 7 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
This is super interesting. I believe very deeply in diversity and inclusion and have been working for these goals 1) through
@cogsci_soc, 2) through departmental committee, 3) through my REU program at Stanford, but have tended to differentiate this goal from open science. /!2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
in part because I think it's useful to think about the philosophical core of open science as being verifiability/transparency (as in the thread). /2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mcxfrank @cogsci_soc
Who will you make it open for if not everybody is welcome? There's a reason under that umbrella above it includes equity, inclusivity, diversity. The spectacular failure of open source at being open to women in tech, for example, is a good lesson IMHO.
1 reply 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @cogsci_soc
As I said to
@melissaekline: I think diversity and inclusion are critical prior values that are not yoked to the umbrella of scientific verification. We should value D/I *and* open science, not D/I *because* open science. D/I is important even when we're not doing science at all.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This is really just a semantic disagreement I think (or hope). Our values are aligned, I just try to pursue D/I initiatives in open science because I think they're important everywhere, not in OS specifically.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think it's important in many spaces too, but I see specific issues with(in) open science and I know the "open" in open science was put there for various reasons not just to mean one meaning of "open". 
-
-
Well we should certainly address D/I issues even more in communities where there are problems around representation, so in that sense I definitely agree!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
