Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
has 1 download
1
- Convenors:
-
Didier Torny
(CNRS)
Quentin Dufour (Aix-Marseille Université)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
- Location:
- NU-3B19
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 17 July, -, -
Time zone: Europe/Amsterdam
Short Abstract:
For many national governments, transnational and international organizations , we are in the age of open science. But, in practice, their injuctions raise many questions for STS scholars. The panel will tackle the multiple implementations of OS and highlight how openness transforms existing issues.
Long Abstract:
For many national governments, transnational and international organizations (Coalition S, European Council, G20, UNESCO...), we have entered the age of open science, conceived as the only way to build sustainable and solid science. Charters, plans, principles,are being produced to define openness policies, from writing research projects to disseminating and preserving data. Every piece of knowledge is affected: methods, software and codes, data of all kinds, publications (books as well as articles) must be in line with this new academic production and dissemination regime.
However, in practice, these injunctions and norms raise many questions for STS scholars. The aim of this panel is first to tackle the multiple implementations of Open Science within the academic world. What is openness? How academic communities concretely define it? What are the transformed and the unchanged practices? What conflicts and controversies do openness entail, following which kind of moral economy? How is dissemination of results and data changed in this context?
Second, the aim of this panel is to highlight how openness transforms existing academic issues. How do academic institutions and researchers envision and perform dissemination to extra-academic audiences in an open world? How are open archiving and preservation objectives designed, with what infrastructure, and how are they intertwined with intellectual property issues? How are the problems of misconduct, error and fraud considered in relation to openness? How are the questions, central to STS, of material contributions and attribution processes in research and science, disrupted by openness? How institutions try to change the “publish or perish” frame into an open, based on narratives, evaluation.
The panel welcomes empirical and theoretical works in STS as soon as the focus is on open science. We expect contributions about all disciplines, countries, and types of objects, as the literature has already shown the diversity of openness practices.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Wednesday 17 July, 2024, -Paper short abstract:
We report on early results from a study in which we are examining the tensions, challenges, and opportunities of open research and commercialisation in the context of Irish public-private research partnerships (PPRP) in Digital Health research and innovation.
Paper long abstract:
The Irish State has invested significant resources in fostering public-private research
partnerships (PPRP) and the commercialisation of State-funded research. However, with the introduction of open science mandates that publicly funded researchers must adhere to, there has been little discussion of how PPRP navigate competing these open science mandates when intellectual property rights are at stake. Although Ireland has made significant investments in translating State-funded research (including data and datasets) into commercialisable outputs, the 2021 National Open Research Foundation (NORF) landscape report found that in the Irish research ecosystem, there is little comparable infrastructure for supporting the goals of open research. Lack of policy and best practices leaves the research ecosystem navigating competing interests.
In this talk, we report on early findings from a study in which we are examining the tensions inherent in open science mandates and commercialisation in the context of Irish public-private research partnerships (PPRP). We focus on Digital Health research and innovation as a case study since Ireland has significant strengths and ambitions in this arena (Ireland is home to 9 of the top 10 Pharma and Tech companies and 18 of the top 23 Medtech
companies in Europe). Further, Digital Health represents a research arena where public access to data and outputs is essential to citizen well-being but commercialisation mandates are considered crucial for economic growth. Drawing on policy documents and interviews with research ecosystem stakeholders, we examine how tensions between openness and closure are co-shaping science policy, institutional and organizational cultures, and work practices.
Paper short abstract:
The talk traces the origins of recent calls for openness in science policy. It will be shown that openness is rooted in science and trickles through several passage points into other knowledge domains. By incorporating aspects from such knowledge domains, it is now influencing science in return.
Paper long abstract:
In recent science policy, a curious phenomenon can be observed, manifesting in robust narratives envisioning the future societal landscape:
"The year is 2030. Open Science has become a reality, offering a myriad of new, boundless opportunities for research and global discovery. Scientists, citizens, publishers, research institutions, public and private research funders, students, education professionals, and companies from around the globe converge in an open, virtual environment named 'The Lab.'"
(Reference: European Union, 2016, "Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World")
The curiosity surrounding these expectations arises when we consider that science is a social system inherently grounded in openness, with this characteristic embedded in its DNA like perhaps no other social system. Therefore, there is an ironic aspect to such calls. How is it possible that science, a social system historically characterized by open communication, is today confronted by such calls? In my presentation, I will argue that the recent conceptualization of openness in science policy is a result of how the idea of openness traversed different domains of scientific and non-scientific knowledge production. Originating in modern science, the concept journeyed into other realms of non-scientific knowledge, underwent transformations in meaning, and demonstrated influence in those fields. Returning from domains of non-scientific knowledge production, openness re-enters science, perceived as external expectations that only partially align.
Paper short abstract:
I will provide a historical sketch how the research values of 'openness' and 'mutual responsiveness' can be become central values of the institution of science along with necessary implications for the reform of research assessment.
Paper long abstract:
I will explore how the underlying research values of ‘openness’ and ‘mutual responsiveness’, which are central to open science practices, can be integrated into a new ethos of science. Firstly, I will revisit Robert Merton's early contribution to this issue, examining whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of norms for scientists to practice ‘good’ science or as a set of research values as a functional requirement of the scientific system to produce knowledge, irrespective of individual adherence to these norms. Secondly, I will analyse the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, a framework that Merton did not pursue. Based on this analysis, and illustrated on the case of COVID-19 as a case in which the institution of science was challenged to deliver urgently on societal desirable outcomes, I will argue that promoting open science and its core norms of collaboration and openness requires broader governance of the institution of science in its relationship with society at large, rather than relying solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science. This conclusion has implications for re-evaluating research assessments, suggesting that the evaluation of the scientific system should take precedence over evaluating individual researchers, and that incentives should be provided to encourage specific research behaviour rather than solely focusing on individual research outputs.
Paper short abstract:
Exploring Lithuania’s open peer review tradition for books, this study investigates the interplay of historical practices and evolving policies applied to books as research outputs. Interviews with researchers offer insights into the merits and challenges of the open peer review system for books.
Paper long abstract:
Unlike their Western peers, Eastern European scholars hold onto a long-standing tradition of open peer review for books, rooted in the Soviet era. Lithuania, independent for 30 years, offers a fascinating case study. Here, regardless of university or other domestic publishers, book title pages mention reviewers' names and affiliations, even though national legislation now aligns with the Western-style closed peer review system for research outputs.
Intriguingly, universities retain open peer review for faculty-authored books they fund and consider research outputs. Faculty-led committees, not publishers, hold the reins, selecting reviewers and deciding publications at the institution's expense. Notably, publishers act solely as service providers, lacking control over the final decision to publish or not to publish a manuscript.
Interviews with Lithuanian researchers, familiar with both open (domestic) and closed (foreign) book peer review systems, illuminate diverse perspectives. Their insights shed light on the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, including inherent conflicts and controversies within open processes.
This study delves into the interplay of historical practices with evolving national and international policies, shaping academic publishing traditions. Understanding Lithuania's case unveils the complexities of upholding established practices amidst changing landscapes, sparking discussions about the potential merits and challenges of open peer review for books in various contexts.
Paper short abstract:
Facilitating transparency, reproducibility and information exchange in biomedical research through co-laboration in electronic laboratory notebooks requires creating an awareness of its social innovation charackter at all organizational levels.
Paper long abstract:
In the context of the replication crisis, the use of an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) is considered an effective measure to strengthen Open Science (OS) and Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI), both representing key concepts of the European Union’ framework programmes. In ELN - a software solution for documenting the research process - observations, protocols or analyses can be linked directly to research data, which is supposed to increase research transparency and facilitate the researcher’s co-production and knowledge transfer. Hence, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, one of Europe’s largest university medical centres, runs an institution-wide ELN implementation programme. Using an experimental design, we recently evaluated this OS & RRI attempt, showing that ELN-implementing research teams need to adopt laboratory routines and practices to use ELN effectively. Also, for establishing a digital research documentation practice according to rigorous documentation standards, the ability of the implementing organisation to develop a shared understanding of digital documentation criteria and procedures has emerged as an influential success factor that depends on ELN skills at the level of individual researchers, and data documentation and management knowledge at the level of research teams. Furthermore, the availability of resources, e.g. IT infrastructure and time, is an influencing factor that relates to leadership as organisational and research group leaders can actively support or hinder digital documentation practice in research teams. Thus, findings emphasise the need to create awareness of the social innovation character of ELN-based digital research documentation at all organisational levels.
Paper short abstract:
While the policy ambition of “making research FAIR” relies on standardization of scientific practice, scholarly actors instead produce a FAIR that is multiple through practices of “infrastructural domestication”.
Paper long abstract:
In the age of Open Science, funders demand that research data is made Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR). Yet, the standards inscribed into this policy are all but adopted by a research community committed to the diversity of their practices.
Following efforts at implementing FAIR in the European research landscape, I find that researchers, data stewards, and even policymakers refuse to accept the script of this science policy without adaption. Attempts at establishing FAIR as an infrastructure instead spurs negotiation of meaning, values and practices.
Drawing on empirical material from ethnographic work, I demonstrate how policymakers negotiate what FAIR means, assessors negotiate what FAIR values, and researchers negotiate how to practice FAIR science.
Through a process of mutual adaption and adoption that I call “infrastructural domestication”, the concept of FAIR and the scholarly community enact new epistemic practices that refuse standardization in favor of multiplicity.
This research thus contributes to a symmetrical study of science policy implementation. Promoting agential agnosticism, I hope to offer optimism both for those aiming to make change, and those who are critical of it.
Paper short abstract:
This paper presents a decadal study of data managements plans from the US National Science Foundation, where we observe a notable shift towards platforms, commercial cloud storage, and access restrictions that challenge many open science values that data management policies seek to address.
Paper long abstract:
In the age of data-driven science, the collaboration between scientists, data librarians, and data managers has given rise to tools and policies ensuring the effective management, preservation, and open access to scientific data. This paper presents a study of data managements plans (2011-2021) from United States' National Science Foundation (NSF) projects across five research domains, where we observe a notable shift towards corporate-owned platforms and commercial cloud storage for data archiving and dissemination. Simultaneously, researchers increasingly attach licensing and intellectual property restrictions to their data, challenging assumptions of open access. Our findings across different research programs underscore the complexity of institutional research environments, scientific data practices, and the impact of digital preservation and data access on open science. This decadal analysis raises critical questions about the long-term digital preservation of open scientific research and the potential impact of rentierism on platform-driven science (Birch, 2019; Mirowski, 2023). From a critical archival perspective, we emphasize the need for a closer examination of how the value within data storage infrastructures is distributed, how digital preservation and data archiving are planned by scientists, with implications for knowledge institutions providing access to and preserving scientific knowledge.
Paper short abstract:
Improving longitudinal data infrastructures in Italy is a project aimed at the formation, enactment, and co-construction of a new complex infrastructure. Our multidisciplinary team is questioning the ethical, epistemic, methodological, political, and economic implications of the choices adopted.
Paper long abstract:
‘Improving longitudinal data infrastructures in Italy’ is an ambitious endeavor, developed within the project ‘Fostering Open Science in Social Science Research’, that engages researchers and academics in the formation, enactment, and co-construction of new research infrastructure (Neumann & Star, 1996; Ribes & Baker, 2007).
This constitutes a major challenge (Edwards et al., 2013), that compels us to address various issues (Leonelli, 2023):
- The concept of openness: This is a means of sharing resources but primarily a way to foster meaningful communication among individuals involved.
- Ethical concerns: The risk of reinforcing conservatism, discrimination, commodification, and inequality.
- Epistemic concerns: The mechanisms through which reliability and robustness are ensured.
- Methodological choices: The awareness that procedures for sampling, representation, modelling, communication, and interpretation depend on technical features, social context, and the backgrounds and goals of the individuals involved.
- The socio-political context: This involves considering pluralities, situated approaches, and guarding against political distortions.
- The risk of commercial drifts and exploitations.
The project brings together a network of Italian and European Research Infrastructures to produce high-quality data on Italy’s population. It connects the Italian Online Probability Panel (IOPP), the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS), and the Growing Up in Digital Europe survey (GUIDE). A critical assessment of the impact of choices made in the above domains is vital (Bowker & Star 1999). This contribution shows how competing discourses, based on sociotechnical imagery (Jasanoff & Kim, 2015), influence data infrastructure development.