Open Science Policies seen from the perspective of researchers' communities: Brasil & Peru
Description
Open science is thought to have several advantages—the same aspect of being open aids in speeding up research (Woelfle et al., 2011). According to McKiernan et al. (2016), studies have shown the significant benefits of open citations, that various foundations are pushing open science, and that more organizations are acknowledging open practices in academic evaluation. Moreover, it has the potential to eventually provide coherence to a shared global knowledge system (Mendez, 2021).
Open science is gaining traction worldwide, with open science policies being enacted at institutional, national, regional, and international levels. However, the practical implementation is a bottom-up affair; national policies and strategies and all kinds of policies overall are top-down issues (Méndez, 2021). In addition, it is argued that institutional open science policies can only be successful if they are developed in close collaboration with researchers rather than from the top down (Ali-Khan et al., 2017).
During the last ten years, many institutions have begun to design, adopt, and implement open science policies (Schmidt et al., 2018) (Kretser et al., 2019). Nevertheless, there is a research gap in tackling how these policies impact researchers' knowledge production. Therefore, this paper aims to research how open science is inserted into mode 2 of knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 2010) (Hessels and Van Lente, 2008).
This research investigates the researcher's opinions, perceptions, and experiences with open science policies concerning knowledge production processes from researchers from Brazil and Peru. It aims to highlight differences and similarities across these countries' science disciplines. Furthermore, it aims to provide an overview of how communities of researchers from the areas of physics, chemistry, and biology, visualize open science policies, meaning their opinion and discourse on this subject and whether their knowledge production processes have changed, and to what extent they had an impact on their research products.
This proposal is built on a qualitative approach using semi-directed interviews as a research method. We conducted 12 interviews, each of which lasted around one hour. Therefore, data collection for the interviews corpus was made in different stages:
1. Using the QS World University Rankings 2022 as a guide, the top 20 universities in each of the four selected countries were identified.
2. After this identification process, scientists were contacted and interviewed if they agreed.
3. Interview transcriptions were analyzed using the 12 Nvivo software.
4. The coding process was made using an inductive category development approach.
Files
Files
(446.6 kB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:ea2ef9bdcda02ae52144c113cab7f6b7
|
446.6 kB | Download |