Open and healthy research cultures: bringing insights into policy and practice

在过去的二十年里，“开放”已经成为科学界一个突出的流行语。许多支持开放科学的运动已经在对网络技术和研究交流感兴趣的研究人员社区和重叠团体中兴起。开放科学也已经成为一个自上而下的政策议程。世界各地的许多政府、研究资助者、大学和出版商现在要求或坚持研究人员采取“开放”的做法。开放实践和概念是多种多样的。其中最突出的两个是开放获取和开放数据，它们分别要求免费、不受限制地在线访问已发表的研究成果和基础数据集。更雄心勃勃的开放科学愿景唤起了“革命”，并推动整个研究过程的在线透明度，包括计划、方法和实时结果。开放科学有时被简单地描述为“好的科学”。然而，许多科学家似乎并不像其倡导者那样理解开放科学，并且在接受开放实践方面似乎缓慢或矛盾。在我的博士研究中，我调查了开放科学有趣的社会特征。我从历史背景入手，追溯科学开放的传统理想，以及当今开放科学运动的根源。我还查阅了当今的政策和倡导文件，以理解“开放”的当前含义。这为一项对40名生物科学家和14名倡导者或政策制定者关于他们对科学开放性的理解的访谈研究提供了背景。这些公司主要位于英国和澳大利亚。对科学家来说，最突出的“开放性”主题是开放获取、数据开放和人际开放。最后一个话题不是今天开放科学运动的一部分——也不是一个在线实践——但是对许多接受采访的科学家来说特别重要。人际开放性显示了一些科学家如何占据研究文化，在这种文化中，他们可以自由地以开放和合作的方式行事，而另一些科学家则感到自己的开放性受到限制：容易受到竞争、职业不安全感、缺乏社会支持或在研究社区失去信任等因素的影响。这些见解对希望自上而下促进开放科学和健康研究文化的英国国家级政策组织很有用。它们对拥抱开放科学的基层倡议也很有用，这些倡议希望与更广泛的研究人员群体接触。此外，这些见解表明，研究社区内的某些社会支持如何为更开放、更健康的研究文化奠定基础：在这种文化中，很少有研究人员感到脆弱和不愿公开分享。在这个奖学金项目中，我正在与政策和基层团体建立联系，目的是支持自上而下和自下而上的开放和健康的研究文化。我也在开发实验性干预措施（通过研讨会和讨论小组），直接支持对研究文化的这些改进。我还将分享和巩固这些见解的学术价值，并将其发表给三种不同的受众：社会科学家、研究决策者和生物科学家。

In the last twenty years, "open" has become a prominent buzzword in science. Many movements supporting open science have arisen within communities of researchers and overlapping groups interested in Web technology and research communication. Open science has also become a top-down policy agenda. Many governments, research funders, universities, and publishers worldwide now ask or insist that researchers adopt "open" practices. Open practices and concepts are diverse. Two of the most prominent are open access and open data, which entail free, unrestricted online access to published research findings, and to underlying datasets, respectively. More ambitious visions of open science evoke "revolution", and press for online transparency of entire research processes including plans, methods, and real-time results. Open science is sometimes characterised simply as "good science". Yet, many scientists do not seem to understand open science in the same way as its advocates, and seem slow or ambivalent in their uptake of open practices.In my PhD research, I investigated interesting social features of open science. I began in historical contexts, tracing traditional ideals of scientific openness, and the roots of today's open science movements. I also examined present-day policy and advocacy documents, to make sense of current meanings of "open". This provided context for an interview study with 40 biological scientists and 14 advocates or policymakers about their understandings of openness in science. These were mainly based in the UK and Australia. The most prominent "openness" topics for scientists were open access, data openness, and interpersonal openness. The last of these topics is not part of today's open science movements - and is not an online practice - but has special importance to many of the scientists interviewed. Interpersonal openness showed how some scientists occupy research cultures in which they feel free to behave in open and collaborative ways, and others feel constricted in their openness: vulnerable to factors like competition, career insecurity, a lack of social support, or loss of trust in their research community. These insights are useful for national-level UK policy organisations that hope to promote open science and healthy research culture from the top down. They are also useful for grassroots initiatives embracing open science, which hope to engage with a broader group of researchers. Moreover, these insights show how certain kinds of social support within research communities can build a foundation for more open and healthier research cultures: cultures in which fewer researchers feel vulnerable and inhibited about sharing openly. In this Fellowship, I am building links with both policy and grassroots groups with the aim of supporting openness and healthy research cultures from both the top-down and the bottom-up. I am also developing experimental interventions (via a workshop and discussion group) that directly support these improvements to research culture. I will also share and consolidate the academic value of these insights by publishing them for three different audiences: social scientists, research policymakers, and biological scientists.