Katja Mayer
(University of Vienna)
Natasha Mauthner
(University of Aberdeen)
Eduard Aibar
(Universitat Oberta de Catalunya)
David Budtz Pedersen
(Aalborg University Copenhagen)
Marianne Noël
(Université Gustave Eiffel)
Send message to Convenors
Stream:
Tracks
Location:
113
Sessions:
Thursday 1 September, -, -, -, -
Time zone: Europe/Madrid
Open science in practice.
Panel T061 at conference 4S/EASST 2016 conference: Science and technology by other means.
Studying Open Science practices from STS perspectives is the focus of this track. We are inviting participants dealing with socio-technical dimensions of openness in sciences in general and Open Access, Open Research Data, Open Methods, Open Education, Open Evaluation, and Citizen Science in particular.
Long Abstract:
Open Science (OS) is currently regarded as the next ‘big thing’ in European science policy and elsewhere. It is defined as science that is transparent, accountable, and shareable, involving the participation of (all) relevant stakeholders in the scientific process. In practice, tensions are emerging in how OS is enacted by scientific communities, science policy organisations, funding bodies, the publishing industry, and science-related institutions, with diverse uptakes of commons, knowledge sharing, democratisation of technology, participatory design, hacking etc. This stream invites STS scholars to explore OS from an STS perspective and to discuss what STS can bring into the broader discussion of OS, e.g. by studying institutionalizations of OS, appropriations of OS within prevailing traditional images of science, or how OS is co-shaped by negotiation processes promoted by different stakeholders.
Central questions include but are not limited to:
- Socio-political dimensions of OS: values, ideologies, and hegemonies in historical and contemporary OS discourses; relations between OS and neoliberalism, performance cultures, and science – industry relationships
- Epistemological politics in OS: OS and the production, circulation and evaluation of knowledge; incorporation of OS in science education and training
- Open Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts (SSHA): extending open media (open labs, open notebooks, open learning, open data) to research, educational and dissemination practices in SSHA;
- OS and governance: Open Access and data sharing policies and practices
- OS implications: reproducibility of research; peer production; Responsible Research and Innovation; Research Ethics.
- Open STS: opening up STS practices in research, education and political engagement
The track will be organized as open space including short lightning talks, moderated discussions, break out spaces, collaborative online tools, etc. It will be documented for public access online and an online bibliography will be created.
Understand the influence of socio-institutional issues in adoption of Open Science for sustainable development in Ubatuba/Brazil. Existing institutional logics is limited; innovative institutionalities are required to improve co-production among academia, affected communities and social groups.
Paper long abstract:
This is part of a research project aiming to understand to what extent socio-institutional issues affect the adoption of Open Science (OS) values and practices as potential tools for sustainable and participatory development strategies.
The project adopts both action-research and territorial approaches. It is focused on Ubatuba, a coastal municipality of São Paulo State, southeast Brazil, an area of rich and endangered sociobiodiversity, attracting scientific research and congregating rich ecosystems of local knowledge. The project develops practical experiments as prototypes for possible uses of OS in local development, by partnering up with key stakeholders, and analyzing these dynamics considering the different perspectives and interests involved.
Participatory public management mechanisms have contributed to social influence and access to strategic knowledge. Nevertheless, their transformative potential is limited: their roles are circumscribed from the beginning, and the scope of local decision-making is narrow when confronted with macro-political forces.
OS may improve forms of co-production of knowledge among academia, affected communities and other social groups -- all of them epistemic communities --, widening the conditions for vulnerable actors to influence and appropriate themselves of knowledge relevant to social and environmental demands. New spaces, objectives and methodologies for knowledge production are conditions for alternative development. Access to information combined with alternative dynamics of knowledge production might contribute to and are reinforced by the emergence of innovative institutional arrangements that interrogates the managerial logic.
The study brings relevant inputs to STS literature, converging local and empirical research and theoretical reflection.
This presentation will focus on a recent debate concerning “openness” in science throughout a French online consultation about a new “digital republic” law. During a hackathon, we developed digital methods to extract then analyze the “data” of this consultation and map the main stakeholders involved.
Paper long abstract:
In October 2015, the French government proposed an "unprecedented" initiative in the legislative process. An open online consultation was offered to draft a new "digital republic" law. The public was asked to vote, comment and propose amendments to 30 measures including a section on the circulation of data and knowledge. This consultation caused strong mobilizations and debates between several stakeholders. From an STS perspective, this situation was a perfect research field to study controversies on digital technologies' impact.
In order to analyze it, we proposed a collaborative approach by launching a hackathon, a one-day event gathering researchers, data scientists, members of the government, etc. We developed digital methods (Roberts et al. 2013)(Plantin, 2013), to extract the content of this consultation (votes, comments), analyze these "data" and visualize them.
Several topics were addressed during this hackathon. For our part, we focused on the debate on a specific article dedicated to free/open access in research.
By combining controversies studies approach (Pinch, 2001) and digital methods, we will present a map of this online controversy (Munk 2014) between the main research stakeholders (research institutes, editors, librarians, etc.) With a situational analysis perspective (Clarke, 2005), we will take into consideration the major narrative discourses and the evoked imaginaries related to science. We will discuss the standardization of openness in action and its underlying socio-political stakes. Our communication perspective will highlight the main role of discourses and its performativity dimensions especially in the case of this forge of Law. (Muniesa, 2008).
This paper explores the behind-the-scenes work in building a law article on scholarly OA in France. Through a participant observation in a professional association, it traces arguments put forward by stakeholders in a year-long process and reveals frictional processes around impact studies.
Paper long abstract:
This paper is a tentative to explore OS as co-shaped by negotiation processes promoted by different stakeholders, where friction appears as soon as actors try to collaborate. This work is anchored in an analytical framework which aims to approach the academic publishing market through market-agencement (Callon 2016). Through a description of a series of meetings in a professional association and its OA group, I propose to study the implementation of an OA policy in France, up to the adoption of a law setting embargo periods. Initially conceived as a forum of exchange, this group, animated by a respected scholar in information sciences, gathers representatives of stakeholder organisations: public research organisations (PRO), funding body, ministries, publishing industry, national publishers' association. This research relies mainly on qualitative data obtained by a participant observation over a one year period.
I will explain how tensions emerged around writing a joint position statement in a specific context: an online consultation on draft "Digital Republic" law, where citizens and stakeholders were invited to comment on proposals and suggest changes. During this process, the OA group's discussions focused on the status of French-language learned journals and lack or incompleteness of impact studies. I will describe the sequence of events which lead to the disruption of the group, and a redefinition of its missions. I suggest considering this group as a space of temporary transactions, where actors were required to discuss and produce knowledge in the frame of a legislative context which was also an experiment.
The paper outlines an open science and public engagement approach implemented in a GMO risk research project conducting animal and laboratory studies. It will also report on possible gains, limitations, and challenges of practicing open science in a highly controversial and polarised area.
Paper long abstract:
Against the backdrop of a longstanding controversy about animal feeding trials with genetically modified (GM) food/feed, the EC funded project GRACE tested designs for animal feeding and other types of laboratory studies, developed guidance for and advice to the European Commission on the conduct and value of these studies for GMO risk assessment. The project implemented an open science approach and involved stakeholders in two key steps of the research process, the (i) planning and (ii) interpretation of results and conclusion drawing.
Research plans in the first step and raw data along with interpretations, conclusions and recommendations in the second step were subjected to an 'extended peer review' by stakeholders. Stakeholders interacted with project scientists in workshops and via a procedure for written comments and responses. All interactions were thoroughly documented and published for further scrutiny on the project's website (http://www.grace-fp7.eu/). Results and conclusions were reported in open-access scientific papers. An open access database hosting raw data and a journal forum were established to allow stakeholder scrutiny and dialogue to continue beyond the end of the project.
Experiences gathered suggest that open science can facilitate public engagement on controversial topics as well. It also revealed limitations and challenges some of which seem to be of general nature, while others seem to be more specific for contested (regulatory) science. The paper will explain the context and the open science approach taken, and elaborate on the gains, limitations and challenges of open science in the controversial field of GMO risk research.
This paper challenges the boundaries of citizen science and the ways in which citizens have been expected to (not) participate in science, examining scientific settings in which notions of expertise, ownership and the use of science for critical objectives come to the forefront.
Paper long abstract:
This paper discusses a model that challenges the way knowledge is produced and distributed in citizen science. The community science model used by Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science (Public Lab) purports that community-led scientific problem identification, exploration and investigation, allows for engagement in the entirety of the scientific process, ownership of and access to resultant data, and orientation towards community goals and actions. Community science supports ownership and involvement by breaking down barriers built around expertise across the spectrum of research processes from problem identification, tool design and development, data collection, analysis and advocacy. This paper explores the work of Public Lab in building open licensing practices and civic technology into community science methodology in support of environmental justice objectives. It argues that both scientific design and technology appropriately used and situated within models of community organizing can strengthen the ability for people to become stakeholders in decisions made about their communities.
Contributing to STS literature, this paper ends with a conversation about the different routes that can be used during the community science process towards achieving goals ranging from the use of performative science to leveraging institutional partnerships towards broader implications such as legal action and policy change. Challenging the boundaries of citizen science and the ways in which citizens have been expected to (not) participate in science, this paper examines scientific settings in which notions of expertise, ownership and the use of science for critical objectives come to the forefront.
The number and sophistication of so-called predatory publishers, working under the banner of open access, has exploded in recent years, with an estimated 400,000 such articles published in 2014. How should STS respond? Celebrate the diversity of publishing, or lament the decline of gatekeeping?
Paper long abstract:
Openness has long been one of the normative ideals of science, and the internet was heralded as the perfect medium for providing free and equal access to data and publications. Many authors, individually and collectively, have been exploring the use of digital technologies to share work in innovative ways, e.g. embedding large-scale data and visualisations in publications, and facilitating peer review in a process of 'open social scholarship'. However, long-established publishing practices are being challenged, as commercial publishers find new ways business models, combining the traditional model of 'reader pays' via subscription charges, with a system of 'author pays' via article processing charges (APCs). In this contribution, I focus on the emergence of so-called 'predatory publishers' who promise rapid peer review (days or weeks), and quite often require the payment of the APC up front. How should STS react to this development? Is it a way of breaking the oligopoly power of academic publishing, and providing greater diversity of publication venues? Or is it leading to the exploitation of scholars desperate to be published? Is it polluting the scientific record if it results in more plagiarism and the publication of low quality research? How are different disciplines and countries affected? I will describe 'predatory publishing', and analyse the controversies that are emerging around this practice and the response of publishers and other stakeholders. How should STS scholars respond, in light of long-standing debates about the demarcation between science and junk science, and the constructed and cumulative nature of knowledge?
This study considers Wikipedia as a sui generis instance of Open Science and analyses how the non-expert or lay character of the average Wikipedia editor and the open and collaborative model of this free encyclopaedia are actually shaping the way controversial scientific issues are presented.
Paper long abstract:
Wikipedia is nowadays the 7th most visited site in the Internet and is usually praised as a paradigmatic example of 'commons-based peer production'. Recent studies and surveys in different countries show that it has also become the most important platform for the public communication of science, that is, the main source of scientific information for the general public - a fact that is not so well known, particularly among scientists and research institutions, and that has not deserved much attention from the STS community until now.
Though Wikipedia is not often considered an instance of open science, it can be argued that (1) peer production initiatives have been an explicit source of inspiration for many trends in the present realm of open science and (2) that Wikipedia is a sui generis and successful example of citizen and non-expert involvement in making scientific knowledge freely and openly available.
Our study explores the way science issues are depicted in the Spanish version of Wikipedia (the 10th largest in the 291 language editions of Wikipedia). Our basic research question is whether the non-expert or lay character of the average Wikipedia editor and the open and collaborative model of this free encyclopaedia are actually shaping the way controversial scientific issues are presented. We have conducted and online survey to the most active editors of scientific articles in Wikipedia.es and an analysis of the most controversial scientific articles, paying specific attention to discussions in their talk pages.
This study looks at the peculiar approach to open science by several biohacking and do-it-yourself biology groups. It analyses the co-construction of a digital microfluidics device and the open governance of possible futures in biology whereby entire ecosystems are digitally engineered or automated.
Paper long abstract:
Biohacking is considered an emerging phenomenon in technoscientific cultures and a particularly genuine one to their "democratization". Biohackers have been involved in developing instrumentation under open licenses, providing open access to their methods and data (on collaborative platforms and in usable formats), or interacting with both industry and citizen stakeholders. What distinguishes them from the current workings of open science is their particular framing of openness as exogenous and subversive to traditional scientific practices, and the building of legal and organizational infrastructures that underline such a framework.
This study looks at the construction of a digital microfluidics device, and such peculiar takes on open science issues, by different biohacking and do-it-yourself biology groups. The analysis comes out of an ethnography of European biohackers at several events and spaces, and discusses how openness is both, constructed, and practiced in normative and material terms through the cases of the "Bio-commons" license and the "Digital biology society".
These, and other, socio-technical frameworks in biohacking usually start as playful practices of tinkering with artefacts, transformed into hacking field-trips and unconventional workshops, and become part of the development of corresponding infrastructures. In particular, the biohackers' take on digital microfluidics is enacted as a question on the open governance of possible futures in biology, whereby entire ecosystems are engineered or automated on digital artefacts and platforms.
We present our experience in bridging gap between computational social science and the open science philosophy in the form of “pop-up experiments.” These are non-permanent, highly participatory collective experiments which transform the experiments into experiences aiming to propose civic actions.
Paper long abstract:
Citizen Science can furnish ready-made solutions with citizens playing an active role. However, this framework is still far from being well established as a standard tool for computational social science research. Here, we present our experience in bridging gap between computational social science and the philosophy underlying Open Science, which in our case has taken the form of what we call "pop-up experiments." These are non-permanent, highly participatory collective experiments which blend features developed by big data methodologies and behavioral experimental protocols with the ideals of Citizen Science. The main issues to take into account whenever planning experiments of this type are classified, discussed and grouped into three categories: infrastructure, public engagement, and the knowledge return for citizens. We explain the solutions we have implemented, providing practical examples grounded in our own experience in an urban context (Barcelona, Spain). Our aim here is that this work will serve as a guideline for groups willing to adopt and expand such in vivo practices and we hope it opens up the debate regarding the possibilities (and also the limitations) that the Citizen Science and Open Science frameworks can offer the study of social phenomena. Morevorer, experiments are in this way transformed into experiences aiming to propose civic actions based on evidences gathered in a collective and transparent manner.
Reference: Sagarra O, Gutiérrez-Roig M, Bonhoure I and Perelló J (2016) Citizen Science Practices for Computational Social Science Research: The Conceptualization of Pop-Up Experiments. Front. Phys. 3:93. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2015.00093
We argue that in order for Open Science (OS) to develop further it needs to move beyond open access and extend into an Open Media movement engaging with new media and formats of science communication. We discuss two case studies where experiments with open media have driven new OS collaborations.
Paper long abstract:
In this paper, we present three challenges to the emerging Open Science (OS) movement: 1) the challenge of communication, 2) collaboration and 3) cultivation of scientific research. We argue that these challenges need to be addressed in order to explore the full potential of open science. Central to our argument is that OS needs to move beyond a simplistic notion of open access and extend into a fully-fledged Open Media movement engaging and experimenting with new media and non-traditional formats of science communication. Using the example of cognitive science, we discuss two case studies where experiments with open media have driven new collaborations between science and documentary filmmaking. We illustrate different advantages of using documentary films to face the challenge of collaboration, such as preserving audio-visual data in science, establishing a medium for interdisciplinary engagement, and revealing contextualized, tacit and dynamic knowledge exchange. Documentary filmmaking also has advantages for science communication, since it uses a visual language that can reach beyond academia, and engage citizens, patients, and other affected persons. In conclusion, we argue that to cultivate the idea of open science through and with open media has a number of repercussions for the research process and ultimately for the way in which academic institutions validate, evaluate and measure the outcome and impact of scientific activities.
Drawing on ethnographic observations of a lab intervention that uses Open Science Framework software to increase ethical scientific practices, we ask how Fortun’s concept, ‘care of the data’, can be used to describe the intervention’s impact on the socio-technical dimensions of Open Science.
Paper long abstract:
In 2013, the Center for Open Science (COS) brought its technological expertise to the Open Science (OS) movement with its software and its goal of increasing the "openness, integrity, and reproducibility of scientific research." COS's explicit inclusion of integrity has made this non-profit company of interest to universities as a method for enhancing ethnical lab practices. This paper introduces a study that has proposed a researcher and lab intervention that uses COS software to increase ethical scientific practices. Drawing on ethnographic observations of the labs and intervention, we ask how Fortun's concept, 'care of the data', can be used to describe the ethical intervention's impact on the socio-technical dimensions of OS and the elements of taken-for-granted scientific expertise such as excitement of data recombination and surprises at the complexity in the data. As a relational practice, "care of the data," communication and collaboration take us to the heart of innovation and the creative process in lab research. In sum, we consider how the intersection of OS, technology, and caring for the data creates a framework for ethical communication and collaboration in the research group.
Based on a comparative, secondary analysis of case studies on the production of scientific knowledge and the role of replication this paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the dimensions of replication across different epistemic cultures and how they link to open data.
Paper long abstract:
In recent years concern has been growing about the irreproducibility of findings published in the scientific literature. The open sharing of data underlying published results has been proposed as a remedy. In this debate, 'scientific replication', the ability of others to reproduce a result, has been highlighted as a crucial method to ensure the reliability and integrity of scientific knowledge. Some suggest an ethical imperative exists for scientists to share data to enable scientific replication. Others speak out against stricter requirements for the provision of data for what has been termed 'reproducible research', warning of the costs and effort involved for authors and potentially the entire scientific community (e.g. as referees.)
The call for the public sharing of research data to improve the reliability and trustworthiness of scientific knowledge aligns with a larger trend of mandating public access to scientific data. However, many statements that dismiss or promote data sharing to enable scientific replication focus narrowly on one type of replication and generalize across fields. Scientific fields differ in their epistemic practices, the kind of knowledge they produce, and their construction of data. This paper is based on a comparative, secondary analysis of empirical and historical case studies on the production of scientific knowledge and the role of replication. It distinguishes between explicit, implicit, exact, and conceptual replication and aims contribute to a better understanding of the dimensions of replication across different epistemic cultures and methodological traditions, and the extent to which it requires the sharing of data.
Epistemic and non-epistemic values driving data sharing (data access) governance and practice illustrate the complex orientations of data generators, researchers and others to open science; in particular, protecting the participant, protecting the study, and protecting the researcher.
Paper long abstract:
Open science, in the context of bioscience studies involving human participants, faces inherent contradictions. Sharing data from research studies is widely understood as essential to meet the statistical power necessary to produce valid findings about biological processes with small effect sizes, eg in genetics, epigenetics and 'omics' research. But bioscience data can never be fully open if the expectations of privacy and confidentiality of research participants are to be maintained.
Drawing upon the ethnography of a large European consortium aiming to develop new technologies for data sharing and harmonisation - BioSHaRE-EU - we present an account of data sharing in practice. Particularly, we studied the pilot of an integrated mechanism - comprising DataSHaPER, DataSHIELD, Mica and Opal software - offering secure privacy-protecting analysis in which individual data remains within the firewall of the data-generating study. Based on interviews with study PIs, developers of the technology and researchers wanting to access study data we present analysis of epistemic and non-epistemic values driving data sharing (data access) governance and practice. Three values illustrate the complex orientations to open science: protecting the participant, protecting the study, and protecting the researcher. An "old fashioned" science led by singular individuals was juxtaposed with a "new 'open' science" characterised by collaboration among and beyond scientific stakeholders. Yet those values were in flux, with some individuals fully reversing their position towards openness during the five years of the consortium. Governance practices were slower to change and current forms of governance are struggling to address the incongruities of open (bio)science.
Based on an ethnographic inquiry inside a digital humanities research project, this study describes the construction of an international e-research infrastructure. It shows how collaboration is achieved between the humanities scholars and computer science researchers building that infrastructure.
Paper long abstract:
Creating an e-research infrastructure that enables large-scale digital data sharing is a difficult task. For scholars in the humanities and social sciences, it often implies developing collaborations with computer science researchers and practitioners. These collaborations are difficult to establish and secure, as the different disciplinary backgrounds of participants tend to produce divergent expectations. This proposal is based on a two-year ethnographic inquiry inside an interdisciplinary research project that brings together scholars and practitioners from developmental psychology and computer science. Together, they are building a database gathering thousands of drawings made by children from several countries (Brazil, Iran, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, etc.). They also seek to create innovative image-processing tools that would constitute a milestone in both developmental psychology and machine learning. Our study explores the way collaboration between members of the project team is achieved. We describe the consequences of these collaborations on project planning, as the humanities scholars depend on the information their computer science collaborators convey to them when they define goals for the project. We show what the humanities scholars put forward to assess their computer science collaborators' knowledge and skills. Doing so, we seek to show the work and difficulties beneath freely accessible data in the humanities and social sciences.
The paper examines terminological, strategic, and actual realms of Open Science as a multiple that calls for multifarious ways of reflexive policy making
Paper long abstract:
Open Science is enjoying great popularity at the moment. The European Union has recently adopted the term Open Science in its research framework programme constantly highlighting its transformative "powers", both for traditional academic landscapes and fostering innovation to provide a fundamental ecosystem for growth and jobs. However, at the same time being mainstreamed into policy and administration it runs the risk of remaining either empty rhetoric or being used for "open-washing" common practices. The paper examines terminological, strategic, and actual realms of Open Science. It further aims to identify gaps in the current discourses by situating Open Science in a broader picture of cultures of sharing. Concluding with an outlook on potential alternatives and best practices of current policy making, I would like to make a case for Open Science as a multiple, that calls for multifarious but at the same time coherent ways of policy making for social innovation.
Communities of academic scientists occupy a cultural sphere in which openness has been valued for centuries – whether rhetorically or in practice. This paper reflects upon the re-shaping of scientific ethoses and identities as scientists encounter a new wave of "open science”.
Paper long abstract:
Scientific openness is both old and new. Although norms of secrecy once prevailed amongst natural philosophers, communal sharing and concomitant legitimisation of scientific knowledge has now been a cultural expectation for centuries (David, 2008). This traditional "openness", which is commonly enacted on the pages of scholarly journals, is nuanced: it opens knowledge to particular people, at particular stages of development, in particular ways. But in addition to observing traditional "openness", today's scientific communities are encountering "open science": a heterogenous set of movements and practices encompassing open access publishing, open data, open peer review, citizen science, and online laboratory notebooks. This recent phenomenon, sometimes described as a "revolution" (e.g. The Royal Society, 2012, "Science as an open enterprise"), promises to transform traditional expectations and practices, overcoming perceived obstacles to openness. We are beginning to witness this transformation on multiple levels, from the grassroots up and from institutions and policymakers down.
The "open science revolution" is fascinating not only because it may transform the epistemological and institutional landscape of science, but because of its entanglement with the identities of professional scientists and the ethoses of their communities. My paper explores the experiences of scientists - with existing, internalised value systems for negotiating nuances of openness and closure - as they encounter new discourses and practices of "open science". Based on interviews with UK-based biological scientists and an analysis of their online "open science" practices, I will reflect upon the re-shaping of scientific ethos and identity that might accompany an "open science revolution".
This paper presents an empirical study investigating barriers to knowledge sharing in research public-private partnerships in Life Sciences, which may prevent the implementation of Open Science practices, and contributes to the discussion on Open Science and Open Innovation convergence.
Paper long abstract:
Existing literature in the field of STS has found that collaboration between academia and industry has led to an increasing privatization of science and changed the way scientific knowledge is produced and shared. Public policies for science and innovation in many developed countries have actively promoted such collaboration in the form of public-private partnerships (PPPs) conducting Open Innovation (OI), which postulates a close integration of knowledge generated by academia and industry in order to develop and market new products and services. However, recent policies are also fostering Open Science (OS), in order to increase transparency, integrity, openness and inclusiveness in research. Both trends may seem contradictory, since academic scientists are pressed to commercialize their work and to collaborate with the industry while encouraged to publicly share their results, and there is an insufficient understanding on how OI affects scientific sharing. This paper presents the findings of an empirical study investigating formal and informal barriers to scientific knowledge sharing in such PPPs, and thus potentially preventing the implementation of OS practices. The study uses a sample of academic scientists involved in PPPs funded by the European Commission's Framework Program (FP) for Research and Development, in the field of Life Sciences. It explores the convergence of OS and OI paradigms and contributes to the discussion on (i) how OS is shaped and negotiated by multiple stakeholders, in particular in the context of large transnational research PPPs conducting OI, and (ii) OS implementation and governance in industry-academia collaborations.
We propose an analytical framework to relate dimensions of openness, benefits and obstacles. One dimension accounts for the characteristics of the collaboration, while the other for aspects of access and accessibility of shared outputs. We illustrate using case-study evidence from Argentina.
Paper long abstract:
Doing open science is to collaborate openly with others in a scientific endeavor and to share openly the outcomes of the scientific process. Benefits of open science are plenty and diverse, ranging from increasing research productivity, to empowering local population and other participants in the scientific process, to improving the democratization of science. However, there are many meanings and practices of open science and thus when analyzing concrete open science initiatives one finds a full lot of hybrid forms of openness. We identify and discuss the different aspects, elements and meanings of open science and their benefits and obstacles as they were discussed in the literature. Our claim is that both benefits and barriers are somehow related to how openness is achieved. We propose a bi-dimensional framework to characterize openness along research stages. The first dimension accounts for the characteristics of the collaboration, while the second takes into consideration aspects of access and accessibility of shared outputs. Our framework allows us to characterize different open science initiatives in this bi-dimensional space and to anticipate the type of benefits and obstacles to be expected. We illustrate our framework by discussing four Argentinean open science initiatives.
has 1 download
1