scholarly journals Conceptualising Open Science in the 21st Century

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-6
Author(s):  
Mercy Gloria Ashepet ◽  
Ignace Bossuyt ◽  
Hein Brookhuis ◽  
Cristian Constantin ◽  
Marta Fedele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Systems Perspective

Open Science that is adaptive to the complexity of the 21st century is emerging in transdisciplinary institutions outside of academia. Despite its growing popularity and plurality as a movement, the scope in which Open Science is practiced and discussed inside academia is still mostly restricted to the scientific community and fragmented between disciplinary silos. Researchers and policymakers promoting Open Science often focus on knowledge translation and still recognise experts and academia as the main producers of knowledge, essentially closing the research process to non-researchers and preventing other perspectives from being integrated into knowledge production. Our aim with this project was to adopt a systems perspective to understand how Open Science can address the challenges in the current knowledge production system. Open discussions among the team members revealed distinct understandings of what constitutes Open Science. Thus, during our process we collated these many defi nitions of Open Science and extracted the dimensions that underlie such definitions and mapped how these dimensions could be interconnected in a more comprehensive conceptualisation of Open Science. Future iterations of the challenge could build on our reflections and explore how these Open Science dimensions translate into scientific practice and how researchers can be encouraged to reflect on Open Science in a more systems-oriented way. Our findings have been summarised in a small video.

scholarly journals Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?

First Monday ◽  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaja Scheliga ◽  
Sascha Friesike
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Social Dilemma ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Individual Scientist ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Opening Up

Digital technologies carry the promise of transforming science and opening up the research process. We interviewed researchers from a variety of backgrounds about their attitudes towards and experiences with openness in their research practices. We observe a considerable discrepancy between the concept of open science and scholarly reality. While many researchers support open science in theory, the individual researcher is confronted with various difficulties when putting open science into practice. We analyse the major obstacles to open science and group them into two main categories: individual obstacles and systemic obstacles. We argue that the phenomenon of open science can be seen through the prism of a social dilemma: what is in the collective best interest of the scientific community is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual scientist. We discuss the possibilities of transferring theoretical solutions to social dilemma problems to the realm of open science.

scholarly journals When Values Collide: Why Scientists Argue About Open Science and How to Move Forward

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dustin Fife ◽  
Matthew Lung ◽  
Nadine Sullivan ◽  
Chelsie Young
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Personal Values ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Value System ◽  
A Value ◽  
Replication Crisis

In the early/mid 20th century, scientists and philosophers advocated for a scientific framework that valued objectivity and certainty. This framework was committed to the value-free ideal, which held that social, political, ethical, and personal values are irrelevant to the process of science. This value system was adopted, both in science and public education systems. Indeed, the value of objectivity is thought to be synonymous with sound scientific practice. However, the “replication crisis” showed objectivity and certainty are illusory, and a value-system that favors objectivity may actually incentivize researchers to hide their biases. Over the last few years, a new value system is emerging, one that embraces uncertainty, encourages openness and transparency, and recognizes bias inherent in the scientific enterprise. These values conflict with those of the previous system, which creates discord among the scientific community. In this paper, we trace the origins of the existing value system and delineate new values emerging in the post-replication-crisis scientific community. This new set of values, objectified by the open science movement, recognizes the scientific process as a social enterprise. Neither set of values is inherently better, but both are reactions to the social environment in which researchers participate. What is important, however, is to recognize the significance of personal values in scientific discovery and to open dialogue about how to leverage these values. We conclude with recommendations about how to overcome both discord and the current incentive structure to increase the validity and reputability of science.

A study of practice based design research models from knowledge integration perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Honghai LI ◽  
Jun CAI
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Knowledge Integration ◽  
Design Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Design Knowledge ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Design Innovation

The transformation of China's design innovation industry has highlighted the importance of design research. The design research process in practice can be regarded as the process of knowledge production. The design 3.0 mode based on knowledge production MODE2 has been shown in the Chinese design innovation industry. On this cognition, this paper establishes a map with two dimensions of how knowledge integration occurs in practice based design research, which are the design knowledge transfer and contextual transformation of design knowledge. We use this map to carry out the analysis of design research cases. Through the analysis, we define four typical practice based design research models from the viewpoint of knowledge integration. This method and the proposed model can provide a theoretical basis and a path for better management design research projects.

scholarly journals Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Manh-Toan Ho ◽  
Manh-Tung Ho ◽  
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Central Idea ◽  
Retracted Article ◽  
Scientific Ideas

This paper seeks to introduce a strategy of science communication: Total SciComm or all-out science communication. We proposed that to maximize the outreach and impact, scientists should use different media to communicate different aspects of science, from core ideas to methods. The paper uses an example of a debate surrounding a now-retracted article in the Nature journal, in which open data, preprints, social media, and blogs are being used for a meaningful scientific conversation. The case embodied the central idea of Total SciComm: the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientists in the process.

scholarly journals Do It for the Culture: The Case for Memes in Qualitative Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692110258
Author(s):  
Constance Iloh
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Cultural Relevance ◽  
Prominent Feature ◽  
Rapport Building ◽  
Everyday Communication ◽  
Remote Data

Memes are a prominent feature of global life in the 21st century. The author asserts that memes are significant to current and future qualitative research. In particular, the text establishes memes as: (a) part of everyday communication, expression, and explanation, thus useful in qualitative research; (b) valuable cultural units and symbols; (c) forms of rapport building and cultivating relational research; (d) approaches that bolster and sustain remote data collection; (e) methods that infuse agency, humor, and creativity into the research process. The author then showcases distinctive ways memes can be effectively incorporated in qualitative research pursuits and publications. The article concludes with the necessity of data collection and representation approaches that advance the meaningfulness and cultural-relevance of qualitative inquiry.

scholarly journals Survey of Emotions in Human–Robot Interactions: Perspectives from Robotic Psychology on 20 Years of Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Stock-Homburg
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Social Robots ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Artificial Emotions ◽  
Art Research ◽  
Research Domain

AbstractKnowledge production within the interdisciplinary field of human–robot interaction (HRI) with social robots has accelerated, despite the continued fragmentation of the research domain. Together, these features make it hard to remain at the forefront of research or assess the collective evidence pertaining to specific areas, such as the role of emotions in HRI. This systematic review of state-of-the-art research into humans’ recognition and responses to artificial emotions of social robots during HRI encompasses the years 2000–2020. In accordance with a stimulus–organism–response framework, the review advances robotic psychology by revealing current knowledge about (1) the generation of artificial robotic emotions (stimulus), (2) human recognition of robotic artificial emotions (organism), and (3) human responses to robotic emotions (response), as well as (4) other contingencies that affect emotions as moderators.

scholarly journals Mapping the current knowledge in syndemic research applied to men who have sex with men: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e041238
Author(s):  
Maxence Ouafik ◽  
Laetitia Buret ◽  
Jean-Luc Belche ◽  
Beatrice Scholtes
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Sex With Men ◽  
Syndemic Theory

IntroductionMen who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionally affected by a number of health conditions that are associated with violence, stigma, discrimination, poverty, unemployment or poor healthcare access. In recent years, syndemic theory provided a framework to explore the interactions of these health disparities on the biological and social levels. Research in this field has been increasing for the past 10 years, but methodologies have evolved and sometimes differed from the original concept. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the existing literature on syndemic theory applied to MSM in order to identify knowledge gaps, inform future investigations and expand our understanding of the complex interactions between avoidable health conditions in a vulnerable population.Methods and analysisThe proposed scoping review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley with subsequent enhancements by Levac et al, Colquhoun et al and Peters et al as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review. A systematic search of MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ProQuest Sociological Abstracts will be conducted. Reference lists of the included studies will be hand-searched for additional studies. Screening and data charting will be achieved using DistillerSR. Data collating, summarising and reporting will be performed using R and RStudio. Tabular and graphical summaries will be presented, alongside an evidence map and a descriptive overview of the main results.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review does not require ethical approval. Data and code will be made accessible after manuscript submission. Final results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and collaboration with grassroots Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual (LGBTQIA+) organisations.RegistrationThis protocol was registered on manuscript submission on the Open Science Framework at the following address: https://osf.io/jwxtd; DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JWXTD.

How Can We Broaden and Diversify Humanities Knowledge Translation?

2020 ◽  
Vol 02 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyssa Arbuckle
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Academic Work ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities

Humanities research is extremely relevant for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. But despite the growing corpus of humanities research, there are few explicit translation mechanisms from academic work to broader communities. Building off of such a premise, this paper looks at where knowledge translation is occurring in other fields and what lessons might be learned for the wider and more efficient circulation of humanities work.

Knowledge translation activity of a domestic violence research network: a scoping survey

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqui Cameron ◽  
Cathy Humphreys ◽  
Kelsey Hegarty
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Translation Strategies ◽  
Inadequate Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Translation Strategies ◽  
Research Findings

Introduction: Research networks undertake work collaboratively on complex areas of research. Few studies examine how these networks develop their knowledge translation activity. Focusing on a domestic violence research network (DVRN), the aim of this study was to answer the question: What is the shared understanding of knowledge translation and activity in a domestic violence research network?Methods: A sample of DVRN members undertook an anonymous online survey about their knowledge translation activity.Results: Completed by 49 of a potential 65 DVRN members (75% completion rate), findings suggested members use multiple knowledge translation definitions, and that different stages of the research process engage people with lived-experience and policymakers undertaking lower levels of engagement than practitioners. Innovative engagement mechanisms to communicate research findings were limited, and knowledge translation barriers included budget, time, capacity, limitation of models, organisational emphasis and support. Finally, there was inadequate knowledge translation evaluation.Conclusion: Overcoming knowledge translation barriers is essential to ensure meaningful collaboration particularly with survivors who are often the missing voice of knowledge translation. Future studies could determine what impact, if any, increasing engagement of survivors and policymakers during all stages of the research process has on knowledge translation.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>This study has identified the need for meaningful collaboration with survivors and policymakers during all stages of the research process.</li><br /><li>Innovative engagement mechanisms are essential to engage end-users.</li><br /><li>A focus on evaluation of knowledge translation strategies is warranted.</li></ul>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document