Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2024 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Novation |
Texto Completo: | https://revistas.ufpr.br/novation/article/view/95877 |
Resumo: | Von Schomberg’s call to place mutual responsiveness – which I understand as the ability of researchers and the research system as a whole to foster meaningful exchanges and learn from novel experiences, no matter where those originate – at the core of Open Science and related efforts to reform the scientific landscape is both timely and significant. Widespread sharing is not enough to guarantee responsible and inclusive research, nor are vague appeals to improve research culture, whatever it is that such culture may turn out to include (Leonelli, 2023). Rather, emphasis needs to be placed on the conditions under which sharing materials, methods and insights – and debating the goals and directions towards which these may be put to use – may improve research exchange, communication and scrutiny, resulting in scientific outputs that are both reliable and socially responsive. Hence von Schomberg’s focus on the interplay between institutional and behavioural features of science and his plea for a reform in governance structures, such as initiated by COARA, are very well-taken. He is, however, too quick to dismiss the importance of some degree of autonomy for those involved in creating knowledge. To show why this matters, I here briefly discuss two of von Schomberg’s additional claims: (1) his focus on ‘knowledge actors’ as the protagonists of research efforts; and (2) his critique of the effectiveness of self-governance efforts by researchers. |
id |
UFPR-18_6380b70fc2e3ed3ebd74a5e730cfabc4 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.ufpr.br:article/95877 |
network_acronym_str |
UFPR-18 |
network_name_str |
Novation |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomyopen science; Robert K. Merton; Covid 19, research values; scientific integrity; research assessmentVon Schomberg’s call to place mutual responsiveness – which I understand as the ability of researchers and the research system as a whole to foster meaningful exchanges and learn from novel experiences, no matter where those originate – at the core of Open Science and related efforts to reform the scientific landscape is both timely and significant. Widespread sharing is not enough to guarantee responsible and inclusive research, nor are vague appeals to improve research culture, whatever it is that such culture may turn out to include (Leonelli, 2023). Rather, emphasis needs to be placed on the conditions under which sharing materials, methods and insights – and debating the goals and directions towards which these may be put to use – may improve research exchange, communication and scrutiny, resulting in scientific outputs that are both reliable and socially responsive. Hence von Schomberg’s focus on the interplay between institutional and behavioural features of science and his plea for a reform in governance structures, such as initiated by COARA, are very well-taken. He is, however, too quick to dismiss the importance of some degree of autonomy for those involved in creating knowledge. To show why this matters, I here briefly discuss two of von Schomberg’s additional claims: (1) his focus on ‘knowledge actors’ as the protagonists of research efforts; and (2) his critique of the effectiveness of self-governance efforts by researchers.Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba (Brazil)This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 101001145, PHIL_OS). This paper reflects only the author's view and that the ComLeonelli, Sabina2024-06-25info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo de convidadoGuest Authorapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.ufpr.br/novation/article/view/9587710.5380/nocsi.v0i6.95877NOvation - Critical Studies of Innovation; No 6 (2024): Towards a New Ethos of Science or a Reform of the Institution of Science?; 62-67NOvation - Critical Studies of Innovation; No 6 (2024): Towards a New Ethos of Science or a Reform of the Institution of Science?; 62-672562-714710.5380/nocsi.v0i6reponame:Novationinstname:Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)instacron:UFPRenghttps://revistas.ufpr.br/novation/article/view/95877/52180Copyright (c) 2024 Sabina Leonellihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-07-01T11:50:34Zoai:revistas.ufpr.br:article/95877Revistahttps://revistas.ufpr.br/novation/indexPUBhttps://revistas.ufpr.br/novation/oainovation@ufpr.br2562-71472562-7147opendoar:2024-07-01T12:57:13.346933Novation - Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy |
title |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy |
spellingShingle |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy Leonelli, Sabina open science; Robert K. Merton; Covid 19, research values; scientific integrity; research assessment |
title_short |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy |
title_full |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy |
title_fullStr |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy |
title_full_unstemmed |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy |
title_sort |
Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy |
author |
Leonelli, Sabina |
author_facet |
Leonelli, Sabina |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 101001145, PHIL_OS). This paper reflects only the author's view and that the Com |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Leonelli, Sabina |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
open science; Robert K. Merton; Covid 19, research values; scientific integrity; research assessment |
topic |
open science; Robert K. Merton; Covid 19, research values; scientific integrity; research assessment |
description |
Von Schomberg’s call to place mutual responsiveness – which I understand as the ability of researchers and the research system as a whole to foster meaningful exchanges and learn from novel experiences, no matter where those originate – at the core of Open Science and related efforts to reform the scientific landscape is both timely and significant. Widespread sharing is not enough to guarantee responsible and inclusive research, nor are vague appeals to improve research culture, whatever it is that such culture may turn out to include (Leonelli, 2023). Rather, emphasis needs to be placed on the conditions under which sharing materials, methods and insights – and debating the goals and directions towards which these may be put to use – may improve research exchange, communication and scrutiny, resulting in scientific outputs that are both reliable and socially responsive. Hence von Schomberg’s focus on the interplay between institutional and behavioural features of science and his plea for a reform in governance structures, such as initiated by COARA, are very well-taken. He is, however, too quick to dismiss the importance of some degree of autonomy for those involved in creating knowledge. To show why this matters, I here briefly discuss two of von Schomberg’s additional claims: (1) his focus on ‘knowledge actors’ as the protagonists of research efforts; and (2) his critique of the effectiveness of self-governance efforts by researchers. |
publishDate |
2024 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2024-06-25 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Artigo de convidado Guest Author |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/novation/article/view/95877 10.5380/nocsi.v0i6.95877 |
url |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/novation/article/view/95877 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5380/nocsi.v0i6.95877 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/novation/article/view/95877/52180 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2024 Sabina Leonelli http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2024 Sabina Leonelli http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba (Brazil) |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba (Brazil) |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
NOvation - Critical Studies of Innovation; No 6 (2024): Towards a New Ethos of Science or a Reform of the Institution of Science?; 62-67 NOvation - Critical Studies of Innovation; No 6 (2024): Towards a New Ethos of Science or a Reform of the Institution of Science?; 62-67 2562-7147 10.5380/nocsi.v0i6 reponame:Novation instname:Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) instacron:UFPR |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) |
instacron_str |
UFPR |
institution |
UFPR |
reponame_str |
Novation |
collection |
Novation |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Novation - Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
novation@ufpr.br |
_version_ |
1808579137637449728 |