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
- Convenors:
-
Louise Bezuidenhout
(University of Leiden)
Ismael Rafols (Leiden University)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Combined Format Open Panel
Short Abstract:
The Open Science (OS) movement places values such as equity, fairness, and inclusiveness at its centre. Nonetheless, assuming these values are embedded in OS infrastructural design is problematic, as is assuming a future digital commons. This panel critiques the current OS landscape and evolution.
Long Abstract:
The Open Science (OS) movement places values such as collective benefit, equity and fairness, and diversity and inclusiveness at its centre. These values are expected to inform decisions on how OS research resources are invested, structured and utilised, placing an emphasis on digitisation and interconnectedness.
As the OS infrastructural landscape evolves, there is an underlying assumption that these values will support the evolution of an equitable digital commons and, in consequence, equitable science. Nonetheless, simply assuming that these values are embedded in infrastructural design can be viewed as problematic. Moreover, assuming that these infrastructures can support a future digital commons fosters a form of techno-solutionism. As a socio-technical imaginary, the OS infrastructural landscape thus often escapes critical reflection on its current development and evolution.
These open panels will critically engage with the dissonance between OS expectations and current enactment, raising questions relating to:
- The current limits of openness within the OS landscape and the (un)intentional lack of attention to issues of marginalisation
- The under-explored distinction between the “digital divide” and “meaningful connectivity”, or between openness as digital access versus openness as inclusive processes of knowledge exchange.
- The gap between promises of digital democratisation vs. participation and engagement in science
- The influence of geo-political pressures on openness
The first panel will consist of academic contributions that outline critiques of the current framings of OS. Papers may include empirical studies on the limits of openness, the engagement of researchers from low/middle-income countries into the global OS movement, the need to reform research assessment and monitoring, and the funding for OS tools and infrastructures.
The second panel will take the format of a dialogue session and will involve invited speakers representing key stakeholder communities such as researchers, infrastructure providers, funders, governmental agencies and non-profit organisations.
Accepted contributions:
Session 1Ismael Rafols (Leiden University) Jordi Molas-Gallart (INGENIO (CSIC-UPV)) Ingeborg Meijer (University Leiden)
Short abstract:
As the transition towards OS unfolds, there are increasing initiatives to monitor it. We argue that monitoring frameworks should shift from current focus on outpus (papers, datasets) towards the processes (connections) and impacts that reflect OS values such as equity and inclusion.
Long abstract:
Following a flurry of policies for Open Science (OS), there is now a wave of initiatives to monitor its adoption, including a recent UNESCO report. However, there is a danger that by focusing on what can be readily observed (e.g. publications and datasets) many other OS activities are overlooked (e.g. participation), with a potential narrowing of OS scope, ‘street-light’ effects, and deviation from values of OS such as. In this presentation, we will argue that a monitoring OS requires a profound change in assessment framework. The scope should broaden from the current focus on outputs (such as publications) towards the processes of connection that make science ‘open’ (usage, co-creation and dialogue), as well as towards outcomes (changes in practices) and the longer-term impacts that reflect the values and normative commitments of OS. In particular, we will highlight the importance of considering ‘directionality’, i.e. mapping the different trajectories within each OS dimension (e.g. different colours of the routes to OS), as well as their potential effects in terms of relevant values such as equity and inclusion. In summary, we propose that we shouldn’t monitor whether there is more or less OS, but what types of OS are developed and adopted, by whom, and with what consequences, in particular in terms of distribution of benefits.
Anestis Amanatidis (Centre for Science and Technology Studies) Lottie Provost (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche)
Short abstract:
Research(er) assessment that considers open science is in a nascent stage. Simultaneously, European investments to realise open science seem to inscribe overly narrow views of open science in assessment infrastructures. We offer initial observations from the midst of these developments.
Long abstract:
Amidst movements in (mainly) European science policy that call for reconfiguring research assessment, we ask how open science, as another politically-backed movement, is considered. Initial observations suggest that overly narrow visions of open science are being moulded in the current "implementations" of the assessment reform. Alarmingly, this narrow vision of OS is also reflected in a European joint 1bn Euro investment between the EOSC Association and the European Commission to set up the so-called ‘European Open Science Cloud’, which is imagined as a central research infrastructure to the realisation of the goals of open science. We contrast this observation with early findings from a project tasked with investigating how research assessments can consider open science. Speaking from the point of view of a university and a national research council, we argue for a widening of the notion of open science in their moulding in infrastructures that become appropriated for research assessment and question how open science sensu UNESCO may be helpful in thinking about this task. We contextualise these observations with reflections from a community of evaluators, librarians, data stewards and researchers implicated in assessments of open science that has been meeting since the beginning of the year.
Gustaf Nelhans (University of Borås)
Short abstract:
This paper examines the belief that open science, via publishing platforms, promotes transparency and accessibility. However, concerns about inequalities, commercialization, and the shift towards a ‘right to publish’ culture challenge this perception.
Long abstract:
This paper discusses the suggestion that open science, grounded in Merton’s CUDOS norms and promoting common ownership and universalism, can be realized through publishing platforms. By investigating the notion of transparency and removing barriers and post-publication peer review, the idea that such platforms are crucial to openness is examined.
This perspective is contextualized by Sabina Leonelli’s (2023) argument that openness alone fails to address inequalities and barriers effectively. Moreover, Philip Mirowski’s (2018) concern regarding the potential commercialization of research and platform capitalism and Jan Nolin’s (2018) argument on the unintended consequences of ‘radical transparency’ in open movements, particularly concerning privacy, are underscored.
In contrast to traditional gatekeeping mechanisms based on journal impact factors and editorial decisions, research funders like the Wellcome Trust, Gates Foundation, and Open Research Europe decide who can publish on their platform. However, the emergence of streamlined and mechanized publishing processes in mega-publishers and platforms like F1000 risks shifting towards a culture of publishing more aligned with the right to publish than the exclusive rigour of quality standards, potentially compromising the dissemination of impactful research.
A process-oriented approach emphasizing the contextual and tentative nature of research findings, aligned with Leonelli’s perspective, is advocated to promote scholarly publishing in line with contemporary scientific understanding. This underscores the need to balance openness with a selection process which upholds quality standards.
Bob Kreiken (Delft University of Technology) Lotte Asveld (Delft University of Technology)
Short abstract:
In the race to whole-genome sequence global biodiversity, the scientific community risks creating new digital inequalities. Integrating recent data justice and commons scholarship, this paper posits that a twin commons approach to biodiversity and genomic data can guide a just digitalization.
Long abstract:
Biodiversity is under threat globally. As a way to map, monitor and preserve the vast reservoir of biological information contained in species, large genomic databases are being built to conserve species and to support biotechnological innovation. However, these openly accessible genomic databases raise questions about whose norms and knowledge practices are reproduced in data governance and whose are marginalized. Indigenous communities who preserve biodiversity and researchers from the biodiversity-rich global South may not see equal value in contributing to genomic databases as researchers from the global North because they do not have the necessary resources to generate, access and utilize the data, or because the data is not managed in accordance with norms that suit their particular interests.
A way to approach this potential genomic data injustice is by conceptualizing both biodiversity and genomic data as a twin commons that are governed according to shared norms. Access to either of these commons implies adherence to these shared norms. The norms may stipulate who can profit from the resources within the commons and under what conditions. This can increase mutual trust and break the cycle of exploitative practices derived from historical inequalities. Indigenous communities, for instance, could be more willing to share relevant knowledge if they would have a say in how their knowledge is applied. This paper aims to formulate such possible norms for biogenome projects, taking into account both open science norms, access and benefit-sharing policies, and the CARE principles for Indigenous data.
Louise Bezuidenhout (University of Leiden)
Short abstract:
The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science foregrounds access to open resources as a driver for global equity. Current digital inequities continue to create access disparities across stakeholder groups. I propose the concept of “meaningful openness” to capture current disparities in equitable access.
Long abstract:
The 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science underscored the global commitment to OS. The declaration defines Open Science through the values of inclusivity and equity and the principle of sustainability. This commitment to equity hinges on a key implicit assumption, namely that diverse stakeholders around the world will be able to add value to their lives by accessing and applying the resources made available through Open Science infrastructures and practices. Nonetheless, current digital inequities mean that this value may differ significantly not only in terms of who is interacting with the resources, but also how and for what purpose.
In order to better understand the “how” of these interactions it is important to recognize that Open Science, as a largely digital endeavor, relies heavily on the connectivity of potential users. It is also important to recognize that earlier framings of connectivity as online/offline, or the “digital divide” do not adequately capture the ability to interact with open resources. To enrich our understanding of these challenges it is helpful to turn to a related discipline, namely ICT4D, that has developed the concept of “meaningful connectivity” as an alternative to these binary framings.
Combining the concept of “meaningful connectivity” with the Capabilities Approach, a normative approach to human welfare, this talk develops the concept of “meaningful openness” through which to problematize current inequities within the Open Science landscape. The talk outlines how meaningful openness can capture the constraints that an individual experiences when engaging with engagement with open resources.