Dimensions of open research: critical reflections on openness in the ROER4D project

Thomas William King, Cheryl-Ann Hodgkinson-Williams, Michelle Willmers, Sukaina Walji

Abstract


Open Research has the potential to advance the scientific process by improving the transparency, rigour, scope and reach of research, but choosing to experiment with Open Research carries with it a set of ideological, legal, technical and operational considerations. Researchers, especially those in resource-constrained situations, may not be aware of the complex interrelations between these different domains of open practice, the additional resources required, or how Open Research can support traditional research practices. Using the Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project as an example, this paper attempts to demonstrate the interrelation between ideological, legal, technical and operational openness; the resources that conducting Open Research requires; and the benefits of an iterative, strategic approach to one’s own Open Research practice. In this paper we discuss the value of a critical approach towards Open Research to ensure better coherence between ‘open’ ideology (embodied in strategic intention) and ‘open’ practice (the everyday operationalisation of open principles).


Keywords


critical openness, OER, Open Research, transparency

Full Text:

PDF

References


Chandra, S. & Patkar, V. (2013). ICTS: A catalyst for enriching the learning process and library services in India. International Information & Library Review, 39(1), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2007.10762727

Czerniewicz, L., Cox, G., Hodgkinson-Williams, C. & Willmers, M. (2015). Open Education at the University of Cape Town. In C.J. Bonk, M.M.Lee, T.C. Reeves & T.H. Reynolds (Eds.). MOOCs and Open Education Around the World (pp. 53-63). Routledge.

Floca, R. (2014). Open Research Data: From Vision to Practice. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.). Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Web is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Retrieved from http://book.openingscience.org/cases_recipes_howtos/challenges_of_open_data_in_medical_research.html

Gibbs, J.L., Rozaidi, N.A. & Eisenberg, J. (2013). Overcoming the ‘ideology of Openness’: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Sharing, 19(1), 102–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12034

Goodier, S., King, T. & Hodgkinson-Williams, C.A. (2015). The iterative engagement between curation and evaluation in an open research project: A utilisation-focused approach. Presentation at the 2nd Annual Conference of the African Virtual University, July 2015. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/SarahG_SS/the-iterative-engagement-between-curation-and-evaluation-in-an-open-research-project-a-utilizationfocused-approach.

Hodgkinson-Williams, C.A. & Gray, E. (2009). Degrees of Openness: The emergence of Open Educational Resources at the University of Cape Town. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 5(5), 1–16. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=864

Hodgkinson-Williams, C.A. & King, T. (2015). Researching OER in the open: Developments in the ROER4D project. Unpublished paper underpinning presentation at the 12th Annual Open Education Conference, 18-20 November 2015, Vancouver, Canada.

Klein, D.B. (2011). In praise of ideological openness. Economic Affairs, 31(3), 54–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2011.02101.x

Maurer, S.M., Rai, A. & Salie, A. (2004). Finding cures for tropical diseases: Is Open Source an answer? PLoS Medicine, 1(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0010056

Munthe, C. & Wellin, S. (1996). The morality of scientific openness. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(4), 411–428.

Ohmann, C. & Kuchinke, W. (2009). Future developments of medical informatics from the viewpoint of networked clinical research. Methods of Information in Medicine, 48(1), 45–54.

Pampel, H. & Dallmeier-Tiessen, S. (2014). Open research data: From vision to practice. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds). Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Web is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Retrieved from http://book.openingscience.org/vision/open_research_data.html

Poynder, R. (2015, October 23). Increased openness is the best way to tackle ethical problems in research and publishing. Online interview with Jayashree Rajagopalan. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/increased-openness-is-the-best-way-to-tackle-ethical-problems-in-research-and-publishing.

Resnik, D.B. (2006). Openness vs secrecy in science research. Episteme (Edinburgh), 2(3), 135–147. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991133/

Tapscott, D. & Williams, A.D. (2013). Radical Openness: Four Principles for Unthinkable Success. TED Books.

Weller, M. (2012). The openness-creativity cycle in education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(1). Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2012-02/

Wikipedia. (n.d.) Open Research. Retrieved 22 January 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_research

Wiley, D. (2014, March 5). The access compromise and the 5th R. Iterating towards openness. Retrieved from http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221

Willmers, M. (2015). ROER4D Data Publication Guidelines. [online]. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K1cDa1_jO6Ssaz7vAJAM5qI2DVxjoqaNV0nu65M6WeI/edit

Woelfle, M., Olliaro, P. & Todd, M.H. (2011). Open science is a research accelerator. Nature Chemistry, 3, 745–748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1149




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.2.285

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.