deutero [reflective/learning capacity]: How are people and organizations denoting and worrying about the phenomena you study?
The phenomenon, open science, has incited varied reactions. Advocates discuss open science as important for scientific progress on a number of grounds (e.g. quality, speed, fiscal efficiency, inclusivity of research). Some organizations (e.g. journals, funders, research communities) build technical systems that they believe to (at least appear to) enable open science. Some advocates act with zeal that estranges other researchers. Thus, some individual researchers have distaste for open science advocates that they see as police. Unclear how university departments react.
meta [dominant discourses]: What discourses constitute and circulate around the phenomena you study? Where are there discursive risks and gaps?
Open science advocates have created (?) a social discourse among scientists (e.g. by publishing perspectives pieces or on twitter) about open science--they often invoke Mertonian norms when justifying open science. The empirical research on open science often catalogs progress toward open science goals (e.g. surveys on data sharing behavior), though some has also been revealing individual scientists' concerns that the movement requests work of them that goes unrewarded. Open science is often discussed in relation to the knowledge commons.
macro [law, political economy]: What laws and economies undergird and shape the power the phenomena you study?
Open science relates to global and local funding priorities as well as the economics of science communication and publishing. A political turn toward open government also seems to be ongoing; open government and open science are intertwined. Furthermore, open science relates to the commodification of knowledge and the labor structures and organizations that produce and share knowledge—often for career benefits. Open science assumes knowledge to be a public good used and produced by scientists.
meso [organizations]: What organizations are implicated in the phenomena you study? What geopolitics are in play?
Government and private funders often hold an open science policy of some sort. Some funders have created coalitions for international or inflated influence over scientists' behavior. Disciplinary organizations, research labs, and coalitions take stances or attempt to influence the success of open science or they may simply demonstrate open practices (or not). Academic science as a whole may be viewed as an organization.
bio [bodies]: What are the bodily effects of the phenomena you study?
Though not the focus of my current research, changing research practices could change the bodily state of anyone involved in the research process. Also, open science might share data about research participants—often, this is health data, which raises questions of privacy and security.
micro [practices]: What (labor, reproductive, communicative) practices constitute and are animated by the phenomena you study?
Open science fundamentally about changing labor and communication practives. All research work could be perceived as interacting with open science as the actor has, in theory, a choice about what to share and with whom and how. Interacting with technology to conduct research is of particular interest to me—How do scientists' use of tools enable or discourage open practices?
nano [language, subjectivity]: What kinds of subjects are produced by and imbricated in the phenomena you study?
I am honestly not sure how to answer this question and no one else's responses to it have clarified it for me.
edxo [education and expertise]: What modes of expertise and education are imbricated in the phenomena you study?
Some open science advocates seem to believe it can upset the traditional path to legitimacy that influential researchers take, though how unorthodox a person can be and still be recognized as a valid contributor to scholarly communication is debatable (consider, for instance, citizen science). However, mertonian norms are often invoked by open science advocates as the backbone of (open) science philosophy, and this assumption of normativity could be construed as also reifying the ivory tower.
data [data infrastructure]: What data, infrastructure, analytic and visualization capabilities account for and animate the phenomena you study?
I work with qualitative data gathered online or through interview and plan to use observation, survey, and trace data in my dissertation. I will structure my analysis using thematic analysis techniques, sensitized by structuration theory and value sensitive design.
techno [roads, transport]: What technical conditions produce and delimit the phenomena you study?
Scientists gather and share data through complex pipelines of information and personal transportation. Throughout my career I hope to consider the many different junctures these pipelines contain. For my dissertation I plan to examine the use of a web app meant to be used as a cross between a personal homepage and a lab notebook—the ways that this app produces and delimits users' research work is exactly what I hope to study.
eco-atmo [ecology, climate]: What ecological and climatic conditions situate the phenomena you study?
Though not of particular interest to me at this time, the public and political distrust surrounding climate research is presumed by some stakeholders to be driving open science campaigns. The idea seems to be that by being transparent in research, climate change will be made undeniable.
geo [earth systems]: What geological formations, contaminations, resources and scarcities ground the phenomena?
There are physical resources that supply or enable our digital communication; there are physical resources and geographical sites that supply and house our research institutions. Some work on open science focuses on the nature of digital communication and how this enables asynchronous and non-collocated work; early writing on this focused especially on the move from print to digital journals.
