Category Archives: Scientific Systems

Open Science as a “Wicked Problem”: How Libraries can Accelerate the Transformation

Posted on by
Reply

by Birgit Fingerle

In mid-November innOsci – the forum for open innovation culture in the German Stifterverband – published the workbook “The Opening of Science / Workbook on Designing the Transformation (PDF, German).

Opening of science as a “wicked problem”

The opening of science is described in the workbook as a “wicked problem”: a very complex problematic situation, characterised by the fact that it surpasses the ability of a single organisation to understand it and react to it, and that disagreement often exists about the causes of the problem and the best way to solve it. Ultimately no higher education institution alone can achieve a systematic transformation to Open Science. Collaboration across organisation and industry boundaries is essential to achieve the objective. The concept of the wicked problem offers important starting points for better understanding of the challenges and the development of solution options. In order to solve wicked problems, it is important for people to change their behaviour, particularly as open approaches question habitual working practices and cultures.

Supporting innovators in the science system

A series of people from the science system were interviewed for the workbook. Four personas with their respectively perceived hurdles and obstacles relating to Open Science were derived from these perspectives, for example that of an Open Science officer.

The workbook lists a variety of small and large steps that can be taken to promote Open Science at all levels. The steps that support researchers who want to practice Open Science as innovators in the science system include:

  1. The creation of incentive structures for open practices, particularly funding possibilities and support services;
  2. Obligation to publish research data and methods;
  3. Take into account open practice expertise and the societal impact of the research during appointment procedures;
  4. Open Science further training and qualification offers.

Create incentive and support structures for open practices

Libraries in particular can contribute to creating incentive and support structures for open practices by establishing support services or by referencing the support possibilities offered by other organisations. These include the Open Access officers already established at many libraries or the establishment of help desks as well as online information services and discussion forums.

Even if they do not offer any relevant services themselves, libraries can at least point to the services of others. Examples of relevant online information services are the open-access.network, forschungsdaten.info or the Open Economics Guide of the ZBW (German; English language version will be published in 2022). Support centres for Open Science (Germam) and Open Access (German) are listed in the Open Economics Guide.

Open Science further training and qualification programmes

Similarly, libraries can, on the one hand, offer training opportunities for Open Science and, on the other, can point to training possibilities offered by third parties. There are many different training formats possible. They range from on-site seminars and MOOCs via “challenges”, such as the Open Education Challenge Series, and email courses to the Open Science Coffee Lectures (link in German language) offered by the Bonn University and State Library and the Bonn University Computer Center for example.

Many training opportunities for Open Science, Open Access and Open Data are listed in the Open Economics Guide (links in German language).

Start with yourself: promote a collaborative working culture

A series of measures in the workbook serve to “open spaces and promote discussion”. It is a good idea to start with yourself if you want to convince others of the advantages of something, and this also applies to open working practices. Libraries should therefore also practice a collaborative working culture themselves, if they want to convince researchers of its advantages. The ever present “bubble-thinking” that many employees in science and administration have always wanted to get away from, that hinders the flow of information, creativity and innovation, would thereby be removed, enabling many employees to enjoy a collaborative working culture. Relevant measures often begin small, such as chance meetings in the kitchenette, at the sofa corner and an easier desk rotation. Collaborative software and Working Out Loud Circles can also promote exchange and collaboration, as can innovative event formats such as open space conferences, barcamps, hackathons and lunch talks or the use of creativity- and innovation-promoting working methods including design thinking, business model canvas or crowdsourcing.

This text has been translated from German.

These posts may also interest you:

About the author:

Birgit Fingerle holds a diploma in economics and business administration and works at ZBW, among others, in the fields innovation management, open innovation, open science and currently in particular with the “Open Economics Guide”.

Portrait, photographer: Northerncards©

The post Open Science as a “Wicked Problem”: How Libraries can Accelerate the Transformation first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.

Nudging Open Science: Useful Tips for Academic Libraries?

Posted on by

by Claudia Sittner

An international group of eleven behavioural scientists from eight countries (Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Poland, USA, Netherlands) recently addressed this question in the report „Nudging Open Science“ and developed recommendations for action for seven groups in the scientific system. Academic libraries are one of these groups. The other groups (they are called “nodes” in the report) are researchers, students, departments and faculties, universities, journals and funding organisations. The team of behavioural scientists classifies each of these groups and gives practical tips on who can nudge each group, and how, to practice more Open Science. However, the report does not contain any approaches on how libraries themselves can actively nudge other stakeholders. We present approaches and results of the report with a special focus on academic libraries.

What is nudging?

The approach of nudging comes from behavioural research. It maintains that behavioural change can be brought about through gentle nudging, without strict coercion or regulation. Nudging is defined in the report as making “small, easily-to-avoidchanges to a person’s decision-making environment that alter behaviour in predictable ways without forbidding any options or using economic incentives”.

A classic example is the topic of organ donation. In Sweden, for example, everyone is an organ donor by definition. If a person does not want this, he:she must actively object. As a result, the percentage of organ donors in Sweden is much higher than in Germany, where not everyone is an organ donor by law.

Nudging Open Science

Now the group of behavioural scientists has started thinking about how the potential of nudging could be used to further advance Open Science in the scientific ecosystem. Their thesis: Whether researchers and institutions choose to engage in Open Science practices is not necessarily a matter of rational choice. On the contrary: Most decisions are routinely made in the course of emotional, automatic or impulsive processes that are often influenced by psychosocial factors (example: peer pressure). When faced with a decision, a person usually chooses the path of least resistance or least effort. The status quo is maintained.

This also applies to decisions that researchers and institutions make when defining how they conduct, report on, evaluate, publish or fund research (for example, in relation to preregistrations, publishing preprints or Open Data). “Human psychology is at the centre of every decision, whether it be buying toothpaste, running a scientific study, or evaluating a research project”, say the authors. They therefore see great potential in using nudging to improve the use and continuation of Open Science practices. Measures at each of the nodes are essential, to ensure that the changes can really take hold.

The report creates a profile for each of the nodes with its psychology and describes its role in the scientific community. Finally, measures are proposed on how and from whom these seven groups can be nudged towards more Open Science.

Academic libraries node

From the authors´ point of view, two main things prevent comprehensive changes towards more Open Science in libraries: “administrative and financial status quos, and a drive to satisfy customers (students and staff)”. Here, however, one notices that the report is perhaps based on a somewhat outdated image of libraries, as there are many Open Science enthusiasts in modern academic libraries who are driving forward change.

The report further identifies fields in which academic libraries can promote Open Science:

  • Create guidelines, training and roadmaps for researchers so they can their research more transparent.
  • Subsidise article publication charges for Open Access publications or finance Open Access publications.
  • Promote free access to the research generated by the respective institution.
  • Advocate FAIR datasets in their own repositories.
  • Develop strategies for research data management to ensure that data is recorded, preserved and accessible.
  • Establish an online infrastructure that makes it easy for publications to be stored with data and code.
  • Open Educational Resources: Libraries can create and make available textbooks, lecture notes, exam papers, videos or other media.

This list is probably not new to staff in academic libraries that are modern and savvy about Open Science, but may encourage them in what they are already doing.

How can academic libraries be nudged?

Broadly speaking, the report highlights two groups of people that can nudge libraries in relation to Open Science practices:

  1. Students (or other individuals): could contact library staff directly or by email with suggestions on how to implement open practices, according to the report.
  2. Researchers: when researchers store contributions in library repositories, they can ask how other data, such as preregistrations, preprints or datasets, can be published with their contributions. To highlight the relevance of the associated data, researchers could also offer to coordinate data management workshops. Suggesting Open Access funding initiatives is another area where researchers could become active.

Whether it makes sense and is realistic to expect groups with a very limited time budget (students, researchers) and hardly any incentive, apart from personal commitment, to nudge libraries is open to question. On the other hand, libraries themselves are in many cases committed to actively promoting the cultural change towards Open Access, Open Educational Resources & Co. Perhaps the yawning gap here also stems from the fact that behavioural researchers´ ideas about how modern academic libraries operate are very different from the practice there today?

Conclusion: more Open Science through nudging?

Reflections on how people make decisions and the application of nudging from behavioural science to Open Science is an interesting approach. It causes a change of perspective in observers and causes them to realise their own scope for action and their own “power” to initiate change through behaviour. Basically, the idea is to change the mindset of libraries and other nodes in the academic ecosystem by creating a demand for open practices. The measures and approaches mentioned are neither new nor surprising, but they open up fields of action for particularly committed individuals and individual groups of people.

For readers, or from the perspective of libraries interested in Open Science, a breakdown according to the different groups would have been more helpful, as individuals tend to wonder: What can I do? Nevertheless, nudging in the field of Open Science opens up other options, provided enough users can get excited about nudging the academic node of their choice. Libraries could therefore use the report as an opportunity to systematically apply nudging to promote Open Science.

This might also interest you:

This text has been translated from German.

The post Nudging Open Science: Useful Tips for Academic Libraries? first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.

Science Barometer 2020: Starting Points for Open Science?

Posted on by

by Claudia Sittner

The Science Barometer – not to be confused with the Barometer for the Academic World – is a representative opinion poll that has been examining the attitude of German citizens to science and research annually since 2014. There were additional surveys in April and May 2020 owing to the corona crisis (“Corona Special”). Last month, the results of the most recent survey from November 2020 were presented.

Brochure Science Barometer 2020 (PDF). The use of the graphics of the results is possible if the source “Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar Emnid” is mentioned. The graphics run under the licence [CC BY-ND 4.0], adaptations of the format for editorial publications are permitted.

The Science Barometer was commissioned by the organisation Wissenschaft im Dialog – An initiative of Germany´s scientific community (Science in Dialog, WiD). This non-profit organisation is aimed at promoting dialogue about science and research in Germany and encouraging as many people as possible to take part. WiD also drives forward the further development of science communication and thereby also of Open Science. The survey is sponsored by the Robert Bosch Stiftung and the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft.

Around 1,000 citizens from the age of 14 upwards in private households were surveyed during telephone interviews. German-speaking residents formed the parent population. We have taken a look at the results of the Science Barometer 2020 from the perspective of its importance for Open Science in science and research, and present its interesting findings.

Interest stable; traditional media most important source of information

Interest in science and research is stable at 60% of the population and is only exceeded by a 68% interest in local news. That corresponds with the opinion of 59% of those surveyed, who agree with the statement either partly or completely that they personally profit from science and research.

Science Barometer 2020. The use of the graphics of the results is possible if the source “Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar Emnid” is mentioned. The graphics run under the licence [CC BY-ND 4.0], adaptations of the format for editorial publications are permitted.

They get their information primarily (80% – occasionally to very frequently) via the traditional media. Less frequently via internet sites of scientific institutions (43%), and in only 29% of cases, those surveyed got their information via research topics on social media. In the light of the corona pandemic, online services of traditional news media became more relevant.

For science and research, this means that it is worth investing more in press and PR work so that relevant scientific findings are taken up by traditional media and can reach the population. Particularly for institutions that are committed to Open Science, this seems to be a good place to start, to ensure that their content and dedication are perceived more strongly. Fittingly, a third of those surveyed are of the opinion that scientists should inform people more strongly about their work.

Trust higher than in previous years; tendency sinking in the COVID-19 year 2020

Trust in science and research is also very high in November 2020 at almost two thirds (60% either tend to trust, or trust completely). In previous years, this value was around 50%. It is interesting here that trust in science and research initially rose sharply – to 77% – at the beginning of the corona pandemic (survey April 2020): in comparison to 2019, four times as many people surveyed trusted it “fully and completely”. However, this value had almost halved again by the time of the November 2020 survey.

Science Barometer 2020. The use of the graphics of the results is possible if the source “Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar Emnid” is mentioned. The graphics run under the licence [CC BY-ND 4.0], adaptations of the format for editorial publications are permitted.




This shows a high degree of confidence in science and research at the beginning of the pandemic and could point to a disappointment experienced by many people during the second corona lockdown.

Science Barometer 2020. The use of the graphics of the results is possible if the source “Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar Emnid” is mentioned. The graphics run under the licence [CC BY-ND 4.0], adaptations of the format for editorial publications are permitted.

Reasons for the credibility were quoted as expertise, integrity as well as acting in the interests of the general public. Compared to the previous year, the tendency is increasing for all reasons. By contrast, the reasons for mistrust are:

  • Dependency on funders (49% tend to agree, or agree fully and completely),
  • Scientists adjust the findings to their expectations (25% – see above),
  • Often make mistakes (16% – see above).

In comparison to the previous year, however, the agreement with these reasons is to some extent severely reduced. The lowest value since the beginning of the survey series regarding the question of whether people should trust their feelings and their faith instead of science, corresponds to this (23% – tend to agree and agree fully and completely).

For supporters of Open Science, the fact that trust and educational level correlate can play an additional role here: The higher the formal educational level, the greater the trust. If one assumes that in most cases science communication reaches people with a higher level of education in particular, this could be evaluated as a positive sign. For among these people, trust in science and research is high. On the other hand, it also means that science communication needs to make more of an effort to reach people without a higher formal education in order to gain the trust of this group as well.

Corona Special: Science fundamentally important; controversy welcome

When it comes to the coronavirus, the public trust the statements of doctors and medical personnel the most (80% – tend to trust and fully and completely trust), closely followed by trust in the statements of scientists (73% – tend to trust or fully and completely trust). However, some also suspect (39% – tend to agree and fully and completely agree), that scientists are not telling us everything they know about the coronavirus. The same number of respondents also believes that it is important to get information about the virus from outside science.

“The fact that so many people trust in science shows how good the dialogue between science and society is functioning during the pandemic. However, the relatively high number of people who are undecided or sceptical is cause for concern: Science needs to open up even more and also seek to start a dialogue with those who are sceptical. To ensure that this occurs, we need to support all researchers in communicating their knowledge, their results and their working methods”.

— WiD CEO Markus Weißkopf.

Overall, the public wants political decisions in the context of the corona pandemic to be based on scientific findings. Direct interference by scientists in politics, on the other hand, is not desired. On the whole, this is good news for Open Science enthusiasts, as it means that they are awarded credibility in issues regarding corona, and it is therefore worth conducting one’s research as openly as possible and communicating one’s own work. It also shows that Open Science can score points with the public, precisely because of its transparency: Results can be openly understood, and there are no obligatory intermediaries such as journalists, who filter and evaluate the information.

Science Barometer 2020. The use of the graphics of the results is possible if the source “Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar Emnid” is mentioned. The graphics run under the licence [CC BY-ND 4.0], adaptations of the format for editorial publications are permitted.

By contrast, increasingly less credibility is ascribed to the statements of politicians and journalists. One can conclude that researchers would be well advised to communicate coronavirus´ issues to the public themselves or to aim for a very close collaboration with the traditional media. The format of (scientific) podcasts (German) has proven to be a good option for this during the corona crisis – the number of listeners and their popularity have strongly increased over the previous year.

There is a very high level of trust that researchers are clearly communicating whether their statements are verified findings or open issues on the topic of the COVID-19 pandemic (46% – tend to agree and fully and completely agree; 40% undecided). Controversies among scientists are evaluated as being positive and informative by more than two thirds of those asked. For the Open Science community, this is a confirmation that it should campaign for discourse to be opened up and create spaces, so that this can take place transparently, publicly and comprehensibly.

This is even more important, because there are also people who “in the corona pandemic prefer to rely on ‘common sense’ than on scientific studies. It is even more important to communicate facts and recommendations for action via diverse formats, in order to reach those who are uncertain and have doubts”, confirms Tina Stengele, provisional head of the science division at the Robert Bosch Stiftung, which is supporting the Science Barometer.

Science Barometer and Open Science: Strengthen science communication

Applying and verifying scientific findings quickly has become more important than ever, owing to the corona crisis. This has led to science taking on a more prominent role amongst the public, whose trust in researchers and their integrity was also strong according to the last survey of the Science Barometer.“

“A decisive pillar in strengthening and extending trust is the accessibility and comprehensibility of research results.. (…) This strengthens us in our conviction that it is a successful model to explain findings and developments straightforwardly, to classify them and to present their benefits – for experts and laypersons alike”.

— Janis Eitner, director of communication at the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft

From an Open Science perspective, now is certainly still a good time for urging the scientific system to become even more open in all its subprocesses, and for using professional science communication more widely, on own channels such as podcasts or on a stable cooperation with the traditional media. The negotiating position for more Open Science is favourable right now, and the experiences from the pandemic have made it unmistakably clear to everyone how important having a more open ecosystem of free knowledge is and will be in times of global crises.

This might also interest you:

References
Portrait: Photo Claudia Sittner©
The use of the graphics of the results is possible if the source “Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar Emnid” is mentioned. The graphics run under the licence [CC BY-ND 4.0], adaptations of the format for editorial publications are permitted.

This text has been translated from German.

The post Science Barometer 2020: Starting Points for Open Science? first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.The post Science Barometer 2020: Starting Points for Open Science? first appeared on Leibniz Research Alliance Open Science.