Negotiating Openness In Open Science. An Analysis Of Exemplary Cases In Argentina
Keywords:
open science, science and technology policies, developing countries, adjacent objectivesAbstract
Open science promises to revolutionize the way that scientific knowledge is produced. Scientific and financial institutions have begun to create open science policies. However, the policies are limited to institutional recommendations and developing countries do not have models with the information on how to build good openness practices at the laboratory level. This paper analyzes three exemplary open science cases in Argentina, characterizing what is open, how it is opened and who participates in the openness practices. The case analysis allows observation of how the scientists enter a domain that challenges formal scientific standards and customs, as they begin to collaborate with parties outside the laboratory. Finally, we tentatively analyze this moment as a construction process in aid of adjacent objectives, where knowledge, tools and ways of communication are negotiated with various parties external to the laboratory. We recommend moving forward with the identification and description of exemplary cases that allow the systematization of experiences and the creation of good practice guides.Downloads
References
BOULTON, G., CAMPBELL, P., COLLINS, B., ELIAS, P., HALL, W., GRAEME, L. y WALPORT, M. (2012): Science as an open enterprise. Disponible en:
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/sape/2012-06-20-SAOE.pdf.
CATLIN-GROVES, C. L. (2012): “The citizen science landscape: From volunteers to citizen sensors and beyond”, International Journal of Zoology, vol. 12. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.1155/2012/349630.
COMMISSION HIGH LEVEL EXPERT GROUP ON THE EUROPEAN OPEN
SCIENCE CLOUD (2016): A Cloud on the 2020 Horizon. Disponible en: http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/hleg/hleg-eosc-firstreport_(draft).pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none.
COOPER, C. (2012): “Victorian-Era Citizen Science: Reports of Its Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated”, Scientific American Blogs. Disponible en: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/victorian-era-citizen-science-reportsof-its-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/.
FECHER, B. y FRIESIKE, S. (2014): “Open Science. One term, five schools of thought”, en S. Bartling y S. Friesike (Eds.): Opening Science. The Evolving Guide on How the Web is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing, pp. 213–224. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8pp.
FRANZONI, C. y SAUERMANN, H. (2014): “Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects”, Research Policy, vol. 43, n° 1, pp. 1–20. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005.
GAGLIARDI, D, COX, D y LI, Y. (2015): “Institutional Inertia and Barriers To the Adoption of Open Science”, en E. Reale y E. Primeri (eds.): The Transformation of University Institutional and Organizational Boundaries, Rotterdam, Sense Publishers, pp. 107–133.
HESS, D. J. (2007): Alternative pathways in science and industry: activism, innovation and the environment in an era of globalization, Cambridge, MIT Press.
LASKY, J. (2016): “NASA’s Juno mission is a case study in social media excellence”, Medium (Media/Technology). Disponible en: https://medium.com/digital-trendsindex/nasas-juno-mission-is-a-case-study-in-social-media-excellence-1bfe2f3ac6b4#.c5o2ylnqo. Consultado el 28 de julio de 2016.
MCKIERNAN, E. C., BOURNE, P. E., BROWN, C. T, BUCK, S., KENALL, A.,
MCDOUGALL, D. y SODERBERG, C. K. (2016): “How open science helps
researchers succeed”, eLIFE, pp. 1–26. Disponible en: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800.
MANSELL, R. (2013): “Employing digital crowdsourced information resources: Managing the emerging information commons”, International Journal of the Commons, vol. 7, n° 2, pp. 255–277.
MARTIN, B. (2006): “Strategies for alternative science”, en S. Frickel y K. Moore (eds.): The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power, The Universty of Winsconsin Press, pp. 272–298.
MILLER-RUSHING, A., PRIMARCK, R. y BONNEY, R. (2012): The history of public participation in ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 10, n° 6, pp. 285–290. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.1890/110278.
MOORE, K. (2006): “Powered by the people: scientific authority in participatory science”, en S. Frickel y K. Moore (eds.): The new political sociology of science. Institutions, networs and powers, Madison, The University of Winsconsin Press, pp. 299–325.
NIELSEN, R. (2012): “Reinventing Discovery. The new era of networked science”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 53, Princeton University Press. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
OECD (2015): Making Open Science a Reality. Disponible en:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en.
PEARCE, J. M. (2012): “Building Research Equipment with Free, Open-Source Hardware”, Science, vol. 337, n° 6100, pp. 1303–1304. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1228183.
RIESCH, H., POTTER, C. y DAVIES, L. (2013): “Combining citizen science and public engagement: the Open Air Laboratories Programme”, Journal of Science Communication, vol. 12, n° 3.
RIN NESTA. (2010): Open to All?, vol. 1. Disponible en: http://www.rin.ac.uk/ourwork/data-management-and-curation/open-science-case-studies.
ROSSEL, C. (2016): “The World Bank Open Access policy”, pp. 3–5. Disponible en: http://otwartanauka.pl/analysis/nauka-otwartosc-swiat/polityka-otwartosci-bankuswiatowego/the-world-bank-open-access-policy.
SCHELIGA, K. y FRIESIKE, S. (2014): “Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?”, First Monday, vol. 19, n° 9, pp. 1–14. Disponible en: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5381/4110.
SCI DEV NET (2016): Data visualisation: Contributions to evidence-based decisionmaking A SciDev.Net Learning Report. Disponible en: https://social.shorthand.com/SciDevNet/3geA2Kw4B5c/data-visualisation-contributions-to-evidence-baseddecision-making.
SONNENWALD, D. H. (2007): “Introduction Scientific Collaboration: A Synthesis of Challenges and Strategies”, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 41, pp. 643–681. Disponible en: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=?doi=10.1.1.128.5805.
STAR, S. L. y GRIESEMER, J. R. (1989): “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 19, n° 3, pp. 387–420.
STODDEN, V. (2010): “Open science: Policy implications for the evolving
phenomenon of user-led scientific innovation”, Journal of Science Communication, vol. 9, n° 1, pp. 1–8.
WHYTE, A. y PRYOR, G. (2011): “Open Science in Practice: Researcher Perspectives and Participation”, International Journal of Digital Curation, vol. 6, n° 1, pp. 199–213. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v6i1.182.
WYLIE, S. A., JALBERT, K., DOSEMAGEN, S. y RATTO, M. (2014): “Institutions for Civic Technoscience: How Critical Making is Transforming Environmental Research”, The Information Society, vol. 30, n° 2, pp. 116–126. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.875783.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
