IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v57y2023i4d10.1007_s11135-022-01524-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The connection of open science practices and the methodological approach of researchers

Author

Listed:
  • Isabel Steinhardt

    (University of Paderborn)

  • Mareike Bauer

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS))

  • Hannes Wünsche

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS))

  • Sonja Schimmler

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS))

Abstract

The Open Science movement is gaining tremendous popularity and tries to initiate changes in science, for example the sharing and reuse of data. The new requirements that come with Open Science poses researchers with several challenges. While most of these challenges have already been addressed in several studies, little attention has been paid so far to the underlying Open Science practices (OSP). An exploratory study was conducted focusing on the OSP relating to sharing and using data. 13 researchers from the Weizenbaum Institute were interviewed. The Weizenbaum Institute is an interdisciplinary research institute in Germany that was founded in 2017. To reconstruct OSP a grounded theory methodology (Strauss in Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987) was used and classified OSP into open production, open distribution and open consumption (Smith in Openness as social praxis. First Monday, 2017). The research shows that apart from the disciplinary background and research environment, the methodological approach and the type of research data play a major role in the context of OSP. The interviewees’ self-attributions related to the types of data they work with: qualitative, quantitative, social media and source code. With regard to the methodological approach and type of data, it was uncovered that uncertainties and missing knowledge, data protection, competitive disadvantages, vulnerability and costs are the main reasons for the lack of openness. The analyses further revealed that knowledge and established data infrastructures as well as competitive advantages act as drivers for openness. Because of the link between research data and OSP, the authors of this paper argue that in order to promote OSP, the methodological approach and the type of research data must also be considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabel Steinhardt & Mareike Bauer & Hannes Wünsche & Sonja Schimmler, 2023. "The connection of open science practices and the methodological approach of researchers," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3621-3636, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01524-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01524-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-022-01524-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-022-01524-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Stieglitz & Konstantin Wilms & Milad Mirbabaie & Lennart Hofeditz & Bela Brenger & Ania López & Stephanie Rehwald, 2020. "When are researchers willing to share their data? – Impacts of values and uncertainty on open data in academia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Christopher Allen & David M A Mehler, 2019. "Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    3. Juliana E. Raffaghelli & Stefania Manca, 2019. "Is There a Social Life in Open Data? The Case of Open Data Practices in Educational Technology Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Nate Breznau, 2021. "Does Sociology Need Open Science?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Carl Allwood, 2012. "The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1417-1429, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Taleb S. T. Taleb & Norashidah Hashim & Norria Zakaria, 2023. "Entrepreneurial Leadership and Entrepreneurial Success: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition and Innovation Capability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Eugenio De Gregorio & Ivana Tagliafico & Alfredo Verde, 2018. "A comparison of qualitatively and quantitatively driven analytic procedures of psychotherapeutic group sessions with deviant adolescents," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1731-1760, July.
    3. Tang, Xuli & Li, Xin & Ding, Ying & Song, Min & Bu, Yi, 2020. "The pace of artificial intelligence innovations: Speed, talent, and trial-and-error," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    4. Marianne Döös & Lena Wilhelmson, 2014. "Proximity and distance: phases of intersubjective qualitative data analysis in a research team," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 1089-1106, March.
    5. Shuaijun Guo & Xiaoming Yu & Orkan Okan, 2020. "Moving Health Literacy Research and Practice towards a Vision of Equity, Precision and Transparency," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Rosa Virginia Encinas Quille & Felipe Valencia de Almeida & Mauro Yuji Ohara & Pedro Luiz Pizzigatti Corrêa & Leandro Gomes de Freitas & Solange Nice Alves-Souza & Jorge Rady de Almeida & Maggie Davis, 2023. "Architecture of a Data Portal for Publishing and Delivering Open Data for Atmospheric Measurement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(7), pages 1-20, April.
    7. Jens Rommel & Meike Weltin, 2021. "Is There a Cult of Statistical Significance in Agricultural Economics?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 1176-1191, September.
    8. Jekelle, Helen Elena, 2021. "Leadership Styles Dimensions and Organizational Commitment Nexus: Evidence from a Public Sector in Nigeria," OSF Preprints djkqz, Center for Open Science.
    9. Yasas L. PATHIRANAGE & Lakmini V. K. JAYATILAKE & Ruwan ABEYSEKERA, 2020. "Case Study Research Design for Exploration of Organizational Culture Towards Corporate Performance," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(3), pages 361-372, July.
    10. Simon Peter Tsekpo, 2020. "Compliance with Shareholders’ Rights and Profitability of Medium Scale Enterprises in Ghana," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 4(9), pages 394-401, September.
    11. Izhak Berkovich, 2018. "Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2063-2077, September.
    12. Martin Lakomý & Renata Hlavová & Hana Machackova & Gustav Bohlin & Maria Lindholm & Michela G Bertero & Markus Dettenhofer, 2020. "The motivation for citizens’ involvement in life sciences research is predicted by age and gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Anneke Zuiderwijk & Rhythima Shinde & Wei Jeng, 2020. "What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-49, September.
    14. Nestor Asiamah, 2017. "Enhancing nurses’ emotional intelligence: Are tenure prolongation, education and in-service training applicable methods even when not specialized?," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1280896-128, January.
    15. Itziar Sobrino-García, 2020. "Copyright in the Scientific Community. The Limitations and Exceptions in the European Union and Spanish Legal Frameworks," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Christian M. Stracke & Daniel Burgos & Gema Santos-Hermosa & Aras Bozkurt & Ramesh Chander Sharma & Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres & Andreia Inamorato dos Santos & Jon Mason & Ebba Ossiannilsson & Jin Gon, 2022. "Responding to the Initial Challenge of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of International Responses and Impact in School and Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, February.
    17. Shaw, Steven D. & Nave, Gideon, 2023. "Don't hate the player, hate the game: Realigning incentive structures to promote robust science and better scientific practices in marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. S. Van Cranenburgh & S. Wang & A. Vij & F. Pereira & J. Walker, 2021. "Choice modelling in the age of machine learning -- discussion paper," Papers 2101.11948, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    19. Abdelghani Maddi & Esther Lardreau & David Sapinho, 2021. "Open access in Europe: a national and regional comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3131-3152, April.
    20. Datta, Hannes & Schütt, Harm, 2022. "Building a strategic advantage with Open Science," Other publications TiSEM e74b06f9-2ffb-41ee-8a0a-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01524-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.