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

在过去的二十年里，“开放”已经成为科学界的一个突出的流行词。许多支持开放科学的运动已经在研究人员社区和对Web技术和研究交流感兴趣的重叠团体中出现。开放科学也已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。开放的做法和概念多种多样。其中两个最突出的是开放获取和开放数据，这意味着分别免费、不受限制地在线获取已发表的研究成果和基础数据集。开放科学更雄心勃勃的愿景引发了“革命”，并要求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。我从历史背景开始，追溯科学开放的传统理念，以及当今开放科学运动的根源。我还研究了当今的政策和宣传文件，以了解“开放”的当前含义。这为对40名生物科学家和14名倡导者或政策制定者进行的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”主题是开放获取、数据开放和人际开放。最后一个主题不是当今开放科学运动的一部分--也不是一种在线实践--但对许多受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，而其他人则在开放性方面感到受限：容易受到竞争，职业不安全感，缺乏社会支持或失去对研究社区的信任等因素的影响。这些见解对于希望自上而下促进开放科学和健康研究文化的国家级英国政策组织非常有用。它们也对拥抱开放科学的基层倡议有用，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，研究社区内的某些类型的社会支持如何为更开放和更健康的研究文化奠定基础：在这种文化中，较少的研究人员感到脆弱，并抑制公开分享。在这个奖学金，我正在建立与政策和基层团体的联系，从自上而下和自下而上支持开放和健康的研究文化的目的。我还开发实验干预（通过研讨会和讨论组），直接支持这些研究文化的改进。我还将分享和巩固这些见解的学术价值，并将其发表给三个不同的受众：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.