Paper long abstract:

The current policy push for open access to research data has led to shifts in responsibilities and the development of new practices. The integrity and preservation of data in many disciplines has been the sole responsibility of the researcher. The ambition of governments and funding bodies to make more research data digitally and openly available requires researchers to work with institutional data repositories and centres to manage and curate their data. Various institutions, data centres and research organisations have taken initial steps to give shape to this ambition. They have developed and offer services to support researchers in data management, produced guides and roadmaps, created training programmes. However, many researchers are reluctant to participate and make use of services offered.

This paper focuses on the assumptions about the distribution of responsibility for the curation and management of data that underlie top-down initiatives to stimulate open access to research data. Drawing on STS literature about boundaries and communities of practices, this paper critically reflects on some of these assumptions as they appear in policy documents, reports, roadmaps and guides. In particular, we analyse how they may conflict with existing scientific and scholarly practices in the natural sciences and humanities. The analysis serves as a basis for exploring alternative possibilities for creating places for open access to research data.