1.3 What does openness in research mean to others?

Open Research
#21

I think the key points are:
In open research there is more potential for loss of control, and the research spreading into unexpected or unintended use.
This dilemma is desirable for researchers, to engage in a wider conversation, yet potentially undesirable, as there are possibilities for unintended change of context.

The process of open research means more transparency built into the research project, releasing selected information before conclusions are reached, engaging in debate along the way, and possibly incorporating suggestions and feedback.

The difference in open research - willingness of others to participate and therefore to get research projects up and running because they are open.

Guerilla and small scale research projects - a very attractive idea.

Compelling - the global network of peers. Excellent way of gathering data and comments to get projects going.

#22

crumphelen’s comment: Do you think that in order to become an open researcher you have to be a conventional academic first?
great question I think.
There are certainly things to learn from conventional research - many concepts and also the research language. But having gleaned some basics, I think even conventional researchers are interested in new forms and new methods of research. Everybody likes script that reads well and easily, and I suggest open research reads more easily because it is designed to appeal to people outside of the traditional research and academic environment. It can still be just as credible as conventional research, but there is the potential for a more inventive approach.

1 Like
#23

I am thinking that open research is not passive but active. It’s all very well being available, publishing, blogging, but the difference between traditional and open research seems to be about the audience. Perhaps open research is characterised by the efforts and systems researchers put in place to disseminate ideas and information outside of the usual scope of academic audiences, so that it is not just research for other researchers.

#24

Key aspects:

  • trust issues regarding the “remix” of OER
  • lack of knowledge about the actual audience of OERs while developing them
  • not only final findings, but all research steps (proposal, literature review, conceptual framework, methodology, data…) can be shared
  • construction of a dynamic and interactive “research log”
  • social media as a tool (for collaboration, data collection and publicization)
  • openness makes it easier to find and convince people to collaborate in a research project
  • online “trolling” can be a hassle, especially in controversial subjects

Where did openness make a difference?
My impression is that publicization (of results) and, to a lesser extent, outsider engagement / collaboration were enchanced.

Examples
I felt that none of the examples were explored enough to be particularly remarkable / compelling.

#25

I believe that depends a lot on the field you’re working in. There are fields (such as physics) in which open access publishing is practically the default; and there’s also some (albeit small) variation regarding the emphasis on publications as an index of reputation.

As open access publication catches on in each field, things might change gradually as well (although at different rates).

#26

I also had some trouble understanding his accent :slight_smile: but I don’t believe he suggested that “blogging equals research”. I do believe that blogging can be an outlet for spreading intermediate (or even final) results, asking colleagues for opinions etc. In that sense, I think it can support open research, even though it’s not necessarily at its core.

#27

Whatever the particular faults discerned in this piece, I think Martin Weller is a great flag bearer for openness. He practices what he preaches in terms of open publishing - journals and books - and clearly develops his thinking by musing in blogs and other social media. He seems, despite his status as Professor, to be admirably immune from worries about what people may think. His sort of open thinking is the real value of openness vs. the closed and arcane world of acadenic peer-reviewed papers.