1.3 What does openness in research mean to others?

Activity 3: What open research means to others

Now that you’ve watched watched the three sets of short video clips, tell everyone:

  • What you think the key points being made are.
  • Where do you think openness made a difference to the research
  • Which examples (if any) seems most compelling to you? Why?

Take a look at others’ comments and respond to at least TWO other forum contributions.

Once you’ve finished sharing your ideas and responding to others’ contributions, head on back to section 1.3.

I think the key points are:

  • Openness takes some time away but it pays different, the dissemination and divulgation is more effective, it allows the researches to build a true network of peers and they are more prone to be involved in collaborative research.
  • The openness is manifested through all the process, when applicable, not just results (even though this could be the more complicated part)
  • OR was made possible thanks to the internet, it’s a completely different dynamic and with not everyone is happy with or ready for change.

Openness made a big difference by helping researchers chaning both their conceptios and lifestyle. Being able to connect with and impact the community makes you feel better with your job. As a social by-product, more info means more efficiency and sometimes this means better achieving human and nature rights (Yeah, nature rights).

I didn’t see any compelling example in the video, besides Martin Weller’s personal experience.

The examples reminded me of the difference between Apple and Google in their approaches.

  • Apple - exclusive, high quality but narrow and restricted for
    sharing. Relies on existing reputation.
  • Google - open, lack of quality control, wide but un-moderated.

The most compelling issue seems to be the one of existing reputation as a pre-requisite for successful open research. Weller makes the point that this reputation has to be earned by development of a relevant and reciprocal network. In academia however, an emergent researcher is likely to struggle without a body of conventional publishing before embarking on the open route.

1 Like

You mention human rights and ‘feeling better with your job’. I worry however that, as with communism and most equalising processes, this democratisation may be at the cost of absolute quality. It is a bit like the difference in the quality of discussion in a closed onlne course vs a MOOC - the good stuff tends to get lost in the sheer mass of contribution in an open environment.
(This, of course, is a very exclusive MOOC - in outcome if not in design!)

In my view, the key points discussed are
• Open research provide access to quality content for both institutional and non-institutional researchers.
• Open research encourages interactive, collaborative, dynamic and transparent research.
• It is easier to get people to collaborate in open research if the outcomes are going to be made available in the open.

I think the idea of collaboration and open data is where openness has made a difference in to the research process.

The example provided by Chris Pegler about negotiating to publish half a book in the open was compelling to me. It is because, the reason she cites, if it is a book about reusing of open resources, it has to be made available in the open. By doing so, she has made a quality content available for people who are exploring about open resources.

The key point is that open research is in its very early days - uncharted waters.

Openness makes a difference in that it opens up opportunities for non traditional researchers, individuals outside of institutions can make connections and come together to collaborate in research activities.

Based on my own experience, the idea of ‘guerilla research’ is totally compelling, where you take, or create, open data and fashion it into research, research that is supported by a global network of peers and develops through ongoing conversation.

Do you think that in order to become an open researcher you have to be a conventional academic first?

@guycowley, Apple and Google are great examples. Google being open is the very reason its Android OS is dominating the market share when compared other smart phone OS. (Source : http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24701614 )

@crumphelen, I don’t think so. I believe open research is OPEN to all.

1 Like

@jorgeandr3s, I completely agree with you. It is the Internet, which has made OR a possibility.

The key points I identified are:

  1. explaining process and methodologies as part of sharing in open is really important, not just sharing the data
  2. we don’t know what others are doing with our openly shared research or OER unless they get in touch and collaborate
  3. ongoing open peer review rather than blind review throughout the research is valuable for developing ideas and analysing data

Openness makes a difference: Researching openly can help with academic writing e.g. using
blog posts to develop ideas for books or papers. In addition, it can result in unexpected collaborations (building networks via social media rather than conference attendance) and enrichment of ideas, enabling different types of research or development of new research projects.

The most compelling example for me is that Open access journal publishing means that those outside academia have a chance to share in research findings.

No. I’m not a conventional academic (I’m academic-related at a University) and my research pursuits outside of my day job are mostly not with conventional academics, though it does involve historical research (a traditionally academic concern). Open research means open to anyone. Open Research gives us to the golden opportunity to teach anyone how to research and do it well

1 Like

I agree, and I like the example you cite of open publishing - encouraging traditional publishers to embrace the possibilities of open publishing is in its early days but worth pursuing.

The key points I took out of the videos are:

  • the unknown potential of open research. Because the idea is in its early stages, it seems that most are still waiting for a more concrete potential of open research
  • availability of open data and its importance in research

The difference openness in research has made:

  • encourages collaboration

Which example seemed compelling:

  • I would say is Patrick McAndrew’s videos were compelling. His comments about collaboration and spotting the less obvious results (like technological advances that help OR) are very enlightening.
  • Unfortunately, Martin Weller’s correlation of Open Research and Blogging was unimpressive. I don’t think Blogging is research. And correct me if I’m wrong because I could barely understand him. Not just because of the accent but also he just rambled.

I don’t think so. I am new to researching and I am very interested and would very much advocate for Open Research. With that said, I will only support Open Research with well though out policies and guidelines. Doesn’t sound very OPEN but I think it is needed. Just like Creative Commons, a few rules and regulations need to be laid out.

1 Like

I do like the idea of ‘guerilla research’ and that it should be supported by peers. It helps the researcher improve on the research and the peers supplement his research.

1 Like

I don’t think it is a requirement to be a conventional academic first, rather a practical necessity if an audience of any useful size is anticipated. Open Research from someone unknown and unrecognised in a discipline is like a new personal blog - likely to have very low general readership. An existing academic with an existing network of followers and collaborators will immediately have an audience for his/her open work.

1 Like

Key points made:
-Research needs to be open access as researchers not affiliated to institutions do not have access to prior research.
-Open Educational Resources (OER) need to be researched and when doing open research one needs to stick to sound research principles.
-There is an intention to open / share all stages (proposal, methodology, instruments, questions and open data) as they become available in the research project.
-Open research methodologies can be used, but various aspects of of a research project could also be open or shared.

The difference openness makes:
-Openness has created new connections, allowed the spotting of less obvious results, and facilitates collaborative research.
-It is easier to get people to agree on collaborating if the results are going to be openly published. Research on OER carries an expectation of open publishing.
-More research is possible using open data. The author wrote a book and consulted his prior blogs on the subjected, along with comments from others, and could then include these in the book.

Most compelling:
The reminder that when doing open research one should follow sound research principles. I think that this will lend credibility to the research.

Even though it is early days in open research, I do not feel that the waters are completely uncharted. Research has been around for a long time, and if one follows sound research principles, as suggested by Patrick, one already has a chart to follow. The openness aspect is newer and less certain.

1 Like

I agree that publishing in open access journals reaches a wider audience than just academia, but if one adds links to the publication via social networks then the results reach an even larger audience — truly open research.