Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Leonelli, Sabina
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