Short abstract:

This contribution to the panel follows three initiatives of aspiring reformers of Japanese bioscience (and their interactions) as hidden agents in the STAP cell controversy, shaping the fate of RIKEN's publicly accountable replication experiment via notions of surveillance/monitoring and of reform

Long abstract:

An infamous episode of controversial experimental claims in the early 21st century life sciences was the public humiliation that was the ‘STAP cell’ (Stimulus Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency) for stem cell research worldwide, but especially for RIKEN, the flagship research organization in Japan, and for the Molecular Biology Society of Japan (MBSJ). Within a few months (April-November 2014), RIKEN's publicly accountable replication experiment on the STAP cell was vehemently opposed by prominent scientists, yet mandated in politics; both RIKEN and MBSJ faced significant outcry when a co-author of the STAP cell publications committed suicide at work; and soon after, RIKEN declared a kind of moral bankruptcy and entered a year of external monitoring of its internal reform plans (the slogan was, not just "RIKEN for RIKEN," but "RIKEN for society").

Intrigued by the panel's theme, I foreground and discuss the credibility tactics of hidden protagonists of the STAP cell events, those who mobilized notions of surveillance/monitoring and of reform, and shaped their practical expression: initiatives of aspiring reformers of bioscience who saw their politics energized by the visibility of misconduct and jumped on the opportunity to network their ideas. Specifically, I trace 1) the establishment of the Gachi forum, seeking shortcuts to pitching reform up the policy ranks; 2) the tactics of another collective staging its ScienceTalks (also their name) via/with the Gachi, under the slogan “challenging norms, driving change”; and 3) an interlocutor of the Gachi, the Task Force for S&T Reform Strategy, a bottom-up initiate at MEXT.

Short abstract:

We are investigating the community evolving around replication science and meta research. The presentation will offer first insights into the reasoning behind open science activism, with a focus on replication initiatives and supporting infrastructures.

Long abstract:

The current ‘replication crisis’ shares many of the concerns of older debates and promises to improve research practices across different fields by clarifying replicability as a concept and by updating methodological standards to an increasingly interdisciplinary and digital research environment. However, the current efforts to improve replicability have grown to a level that surpasses earlier debate. Replication studies are a central part of what many are seeing not just as contributions to improving research quality within a specific field but as a new, cross-disciplinary field of research sometimes called ‘replication science’ or ‘meta research’. In line with previous research in science studies about emerging research fields we conceptualize replication initiatives as a social movement.

As part of an ongoing research project, we are in the process of collecting information on the different types of replication initiatives in the social, behavioural and cognitive sciences, to provide a ‘cartography’ of the field and its community. To survey their epistemic and institutional properties, two main data sources are being used: published materials from these initiatives (papers, protocols, websites, etc.) and in-depth, qualitative interviews with participating researchers. A summary of our findings thus far will be presented, focusing on the argumentation and discourse culture within the movement.

Short abstract:

This talk on the rigor and reproducibility reform movement will argue that this movement is not necessarily generating new social forms, but is shifting the conditions of possibility of scientific work in ways that make some forms more prevalent than others.

Long abstract:

This talk on the rigor and reproducibility reform movement will argue that this movement is not necessarily generating new social forms, but is shifting the conditions of possibility of scientific work in ways that make some forms more prevalent than others, and in doing so create new epistemic risks. Together with the rise of audit culture and pressure from industry to more closely integrate academic research, initiatives from the reproducibility reform movement are tipping the scales towards collective and more homogeneous forms of scientific work. This pattern tracks in some respects with the trajectory of the Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) reform movement, which took individual variation as a problem to be solved and invented new knowledge tools to make this variation visible (and therefore amenable to intervention). But the reproducibility reform movement also departs in significant ways from EBM, most notably how each movement conceptualizes the role of producers and users of knowledge. I will argue that the reproducibility reform movement is epistemically risker than EBM because it aims to standardize not just knowledge users but knowledge producers.

Short abstract:

Through qualitative interviews with high-level university employees tasked with leading the implementation of research culture activities at their institution, this study explores the multifaceted values, agendas, & organisational approaches driving the rise of 'research culture work' in UK academia

Long abstract:

The past decade has seen growing attention to the importance that research culture has for the wellbeing of researchers and the conduct of research (e.g., Noorden 2018; Science Europe 2021). This attention has been particularly pronounced in the UK higher education sector, where issues such as heightened competition, the prevalence of metrics, rising job insecurity, and problematic workplace behaviours have raised concerns (see Moran et al. 2020). In response, major funders like the Wellcome Trust have underscored the need for fostering a healthy research culture. Moreover, in 2021-22, Research England established a fund worth £30M (since renewed two more years) to be distributed among English universities to enhance their research culture. This coincides with efforts to elevate the importance of 'research culture' in the upcoming REF evaluation. In response to these developments, a variety of initiatives aiming to cultivate a positive research culture have emerged across the sector, ranging from surveys, events, and working groups to the establishment of new positions and even entire sections dedicated to the cause.

This study is interested in what these initiatives look like across different universities, exploring their organisation, implementation, and the underlying agendas and values driving their development. To gain insights, qualitative interviews have been conducted with high-level university employees tasked with spearheading research culture activities at their institution.

In the talk I will share findings from these interviews, and what they suggest about future work in this emerging field. Additionally, I will situate ‘research culture work’ within related sociological and STS literature.

Short abstract:

This paper examines the institutionalisation of research reform movements through top-down 'research culture' initiatives. Using the University of Edinburgh as a case study, we focus on elucidating the extent to which top-down initiatives are aligned with 'successful' existing bottom-up initiatives.

Long abstract:

Spurred initially by concerns within particular scientific communities over the reliability of published research, its accessibility, and the negative effects of competition, improving ‘research culture’ has become an increasingly prominent subject at UK universities. Here, we examine the construction of 'research culture’ during the recent wave of institutionalisation of research reform movements, and how this is being translated into policy initiatives that focus on changing particular research practices and processes. Using the University of Edinburgh as a case study, notable for having recently published its first ‘Research Cultures Action Plan’, we are particularly interested in elucidating the extent to which top-down initiatives are aligned with 'successful' existing bottom-up initiatives, such as the ReproducibiliTea Journal Club. To understand these dynamics, we analyse key documents and processes, while also drawing on our own involvement with specific cases, including the implementation of Responsible Metrics, the development of Responsible Innovation processes, and the UCU strike to improve reward, workload, equality, and casualisation. By highlighting places of convergence and divergence, hot spots and blind spots, we aim to find routes and roles for productive engagement with these institutional reforms, while questioning the role of STS as a social movement within these dynamics.

Short abstract:

Air travel is increasingly discussed in the context of carbon emissions. However, the move to reform academic conferences towards less physical copresence comes into conflict with academic travel cultures that traditionally value face-to-face interaction.

Long abstract:

As air travel is increasingly discussed in the context of its carbon emissions since the turn of the millennium, academic air travel, i.e. short-term mobility practices in academia involving flying, has become the subject of a growing critical and self-reflective discourse in academia and higher education administration. While not a SIM in the strict sense, a community of academic activists, researchers, transdisciplinary actors and higher education administration professionals has emerged which aims at reforming the way academic conferences are conducted with the overall aim to reduce academic air travel. Concerns around academic air travel (AAT) navigate a multitude of tensions and ambivalences around the role of conferences in science: namely, science as a universal vs. local practice, the obligation for individual academics to “fly or die”, and the tension between epistemological, professional and social benefits of academic exchange on the one hand and issues of access to AAT and AAT’s deleterious environmental impacts on the other hand. The activism around AAT can be seen as part of the collective action streak in science, and is here presented as a case study. In advocacy around AAT reform, a key factor that has been recognised in the literature are disciplinary differences both regarding the level of politicisation and moralisation of air travel. For example, while researchers in the climate sciences are among the most vocal in arguing for air travel reduction, they are also among the most frequent academic fliers. The presentation reports on a workshop/focus group discussion at the EGU.

Short abstract:

This paper explores how research impact within the REF became institutionalised and legitimised by pro-impact communities. Thus, it will explore how the top-down and bottom-up movements for impact have transformed each other and the new professions and forms of expertise that consequently emerged.

Long abstract:

This paper explores the rise of the so-called impact agenda in the UK as a project in cultural transition. The research impact agenda is often (and rightly so) discussed as a top-down political project driven by the changes to the UK’s 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF). However, the rapid and large-scale implementation and institutionalisation of ‘impact’ across the sector would not be possible without an already existing movement advocating for impact-adjacent practices such as evidence-based policymaking, co-production or public engagement. This paper explores how REF's top-down incentivisation of these practices has shaped these movements by enabling them (by legitimising their existence and creating a ‘market’ for impact advice) and limiting their activities (by narrowing down the scope of ‘acceptable impact’). Thus, this presentation will explore how the top-down and bottom-up movements for impact have transformed each other and the new professions and forms of expertise that consequently emerged. It will do so by drawing on two datasets of interviews with people working at the ‘forefront’ of the impact agenda, including translational researchers, knowledge brokers, impact trainers and advisers. The interviews were collected at different stages of institutionalisation of research impact, in 2015-2016 and 2023-2014. Such longitudinal analysis allows tracking the evolving perspectives on impact within this community and the interplay between the informal and formal agents of science policy.