Junior research group: Open science

Start of the project: 2018-Aug-01

One of Open Science’s visions is to increase the quality and efficiency of scientific research by making research data, computer code, and other resources created in the research process, publicly available. Advocates for increased sharing argue that widely sharing those resources is desirable in order to support the reproducibility of research, increase the transparency of the research process, make efficient use of research funding, and enable new innovative forms of research. Critical for the success of this vision is the readiness of research groups to share the resources that they have created.

However, we only have a limited theoretical understanding of what drives the sharing of those resources in different fields of science, and how to explain the variation of forms of sharing across fields. The junior research group is therefore setting out to examine what field-inherent factors influence sharing and to explain how they influence decisions to share.

The theoretical starting point is an understanding of the production of scientific knowledge in research specialities as an integration of local and community-level processes. Research specialities differ in where the boundary between local and community-level processes of knowledge production is drawn. In order to develop a better understanding of field-specific forms of sharing we therefore need to turn our attention to the factors that influence where this boundary is drawn and the role of sharing in the construction of this boundary.

The project employs a mixed-method approach that combines bibliometrics, ethnography, expert interviews, and survey research to determine field-specific sharing rates and develop causal explanations of how the form of knowledge creation influences sharing decisions.

A better understanding of what drives sharing in scientific research and how research specialities differ in this regard will enable the development of more effective policies and incentives for open science that are attuned to field-specific challenges and opportunities.

The project will produce empirical and theoretical insights into the variation of forms of sharing across research specialities. In addition, it aims to innovate approaches to comparative studies of sharing in the sciences by developing methods that capture the variation of relevant properties of forms of knowledge production within and across research specialities.

Show more Show less
Publications

The Field-Specificity of Open Data Practices.

Velden, T., & Tcypina, A. (2023).
The Field-Specificity of Open Data Practices. In International Conference on Science (Hrsg.), 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023). Leiden, Niederlande: ovium.io. https://doi.org/10.55835/64b14ef741aa5b443685f9d3
Abstract

Increasingly, researchers are expected to make their research data openly available. However, scientific fields differ in their research practices and norms for sharing research data. We provide quantitative evidence of differences in data practices and the public sharing of research data at a granularity of field-specificity that is rarely reported in open data surveys. Based on a survey of 8,822 researchers at German Universities, we find considerable variation, within and across disciplines, of data practices and rates of open data sharing. Our findings underline that in order to evaluate rates of public data sharing, a better understanding of the embedding of public data sharing into field-specific research practices is needed.

How to interpret algorithmically constructed topical structures of scientific fields? A case study of citation-based mappings of the research specialty of invasion biology.

Held, M., & Velden (2022).
How to interpret algorithmically constructed topical structures of scientific fields? A case study of citation-based mappings of the research specialty of invasion biology. Quantitative Science Studies (online first). https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00194
Abstract

Often, bibliometric mapping studies remain at a very abstract level when assessing the validity or accuracy of the generated maps. In this case study of citation-based mappings of a research specialty, we dig deeper into the topical structures generated by the chosen mapping approaches and examine their correspondence to a sociologically informed understanding of the research specialty in question. Our analysis highlights the variety of types of topical relatedness and epistemic interdependency that citations can stand for. Unless we assume that invasion biology is unique, our analysis suggests that global algorithmic field classification approaches that use citation links indiscriminately may struggle to reconstruct research specialties.

A Case Study of the Epistemic Function of Citations - Implications for Citation-based Science Mapping.

Seitz, C., Schmidt, M., Schwichtenberg, N., & Velden, T. (2021).
A Case Study of the Epistemic Function of Citations - Implications for Citation-based Science Mapping. In W. Glänzel, S. Heeffer, P.-S. Chi, & R. Rousseau (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics (S. 1027-1032). Leuven: KU Leuven / International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (I.S.S.I.).
Abstract

The use of citations as indicators of topical relatedness of publications is common in the algorithmic mapping of the structure of science. References to source documents, however, may serve a variety of epistemic functions, and hence represent rather different dimensions of topical relatedness, such as the research methods used, the empirical objects studied, the theoretical resources build on, the research questions pursued, or the external motivation for and relevance of the work. In this case study, we explore the diversity in topical dimensions along which publications are linked in citation networks, by coding the epistemic function of in-text citations. [...]

Vertrauen in Wissen. Gedanken zu einer vergleichenden ethnographischen Feldstudie zum Verständnis der kulturtypischen Konstruktion von Un-/Gewissheit in der Produktion wissenschaftlichen Wissens.

Schwichtenberg, N. (2021).
Vertrauen in Wissen. Gedanken zu einer vergleichenden ethnographischen Feldstudie zum Verständnis der kulturtypischen Konstruktion von Un-/Gewissheit in der Produktion wissenschaftlichen Wissens. In O. Dimbath & M. Pfadenhauer (Hrsg.), Gewissheit. Beiträge und Debatten zum 3. Sektionskongress der Wissenssoziologie (S. 293-305). Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa.

The Open Innovation in Science Research Field: A Collaborative Conceptualisation Approach.

Beck, S., Bergenholtz, C., Bogers, M., Brasseur, T., Conradsen, M. L., Di Marco, D., ... & Xu, S. M. (2020).
The Open Innovation in Science Research Field: A Collaborative Conceptualisation Approach. Industry and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1792274

How to interpret algorithmically constructed topical structures of research specialties? A case study comparing an internal and an external mapping of the topical structure of invasion biology.

Held, M., & Velden, T. (2019).
How to interpret algorithmically constructed topical structures of research specialties? A case study comparing an internal and an external mapping of the topical structure of invasion biology. In Catalano, G., Daraio, C., Gregori, M., Moed, H. F., & Ruocco, G (Hrsg.) Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2019), Vol. 2, (S. 1933-1939). Edizioni Efesto. ISBN 978-88-3381-118-5.

Exploration of reproducibility issues in scientometric research.

Velden, T., Hinze, S. Scharnhorst, A. Schneider, J.W., & Waltman, L. (2018).
Exploration of reproducibility issues in scientometric research. In STI 2018 Conference Proceedings. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. 12-14 September 2018, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Presentations

Exploring a Critical Methodological Gap in Measuring of Field-Differences in Survey Research: Insights into Scientific Data Sharing and Beyond.

Tcypina, A. (2024, September).
Exploring a Critical Methodological Gap in Measuring of Field-Differences in Survey Research: Insights into Scientific Data Sharing and Beyond. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators 2024 (STI), Berlin, Deutschland.

Field-comparative investigations of scientific trust.

Schwichtenberg, N. (2023, November).
Field-comparative investigations of scientific trust. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 4S 2023 Honolulu: "SEA, SKY, AND LAND: ENGAGING IN SOLIDARITY IN ENDANGERED ECOLOGIES", Society for Social Studies of Science, Honolulu, USA.

Using a field-comparative approach to explain field differences in sharing: Challenges for establishing causality.

Velden, T., & Schwichtenberg, N. (2023, November).
Using a field-comparative approach to explain field differences in sharing: Challenges for establishing causality. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 4S 2023 Honolulu: "SEA, SKY, AND LAND: ENGAGING IN SOLIDARITY IN ENDANGERED ECOLOGIES", Society for Social Studies of Science, Honolulu (online), USA.
Abstract

In our research, we examine the role of sharing of epistemic resources, such as research data, code, samples, or method know-how, for knowledge production in scientific fields. Our focus is on resources that are created in the process of research and shared with researchers or research groups outside of the original context of creation of the resource. Based on a field-comparative ethnographic study of research specialties in the sciences that differ in their epistemic practices, we examine the causal link between epistemic conditions of research on the one hand, and reoccurring patterns of sharing on the other. In our contribution we discuss challenges encountered when deriving causal explanations of field differences in sharing.

Feldklassifikationen und ihre Grenzen aus dem Kontext der Anwendung in der (surveybasierten) feldvergleichenden soziologischen Wissenschaftsforschung.

Velden, T. (2023, November).
Feldklassifikationen und ihre Grenzen aus dem Kontext der Anwendung in der (surveybasierten) feldvergleichenden soziologischen Wissenschaftsforschung. Vortrag im Rahmen des Netzwerktreffens Kompetenznetzwerk Bibliometrie, Kompetenznetzwerk Bibliometrie.

Making the invisible differences visible.

Hartstein, J., Tcypina, A., & Fabian, G. (2023, Oktober).
Making the invisible differences visible. Vortrag auf der Konferenz The Future of Higher Education and Science, Leibniz Center for Social Sciences, Leibniz-Universität Hannover & Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW), Hannover.

The Field-Specificity of Open Data Practices.

Velden, T., & Tcypina, A. (2023, September).
The Field-Specificity of Open Data Practices. Vortrag auf der Konferenz The 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023), CWTS in collaboration with the European Network of Indicator Developers (ENID), Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract

Increasingly, researchers are expected to make their research data openly available. However, scientific fields differ in their research practices and norms for sharing research data. We provide quantitative evidence of differences in data practices and the public sharing of research data at a granularity of field-specificity that is rarely reported in open data surveys. Based on a survey of 8,822 researchers at German Universities, we find considerable variation, within and across disciplines, of data practices and rates of open data sharing. Our findings underline that in order to evaluate rates of public data sharing, a better understanding of the embedding of public data sharing into field-specific research practices is needed.

Epistemic Diversity meets Open Science: The Field-Specificity of Data Sharing (Keynote).

Velden, T. (2023, September).
Epistemic Diversity meets Open Science: The Field-Specificity of Data Sharing (Keynote). Vortrag auf der Summer School Approaches to Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (HoBid 2023), Paderborn, Deutschland.
Abstract

Increasingly, researchers are expected to make their research data openly available. In this keynote, I provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in research on the sharing of research data with a particular emphasis on understanding field-specific motivations of researchers to share or not to share.

The Science of Open Science - Was wissen wir über das Teilen von Forschungsergebnissen?

Velden, T. (21.12.2022).
The Science of Open Science - Was wissen wir über das Teilen von Forschungsergebnissen? Gespräch mit in der D. Siegfried (Moderation), Podcast-Serie "The Future is Open Science". Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft (ZBW) , Berlin.

Sharing and Reuse Decisions in Science.

Schwichtenberg, N. (2022, Juli).
Sharing and Reuse Decisions in Science. Vortrag im Rahmen der Interdisciplinary International Graduate Summer School “Open science”: ambivalences and tensions ‐ New borderlands between science, technology and society. , University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, San Sebastian, Spanien.

Giants or dwarfs on stilts? Scientific trust within research specialties.

Schwichtenberg, N. (2021, Oktober).
Giants or dwarfs on stilts? Scientific trust within research specialties. Vortrag auf der Konferenz Trust in Science, Research group “Trust in information” , High-Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS) of the University of Stuttgart , Stuttgart, Deutschland.
Abstract

For a long time the scientific production process has been known as resting on the "shoulders of giants" (Merton 1965). But how do scientists know that these giants are actually giants and not dwarfs on stilts? Where do they get their firm footing in science from? How do they know they won't hit hard ground? They do trust in the giants. [...] This paper aims to draw a systematic picture of the role of scientific trust within research specialties. By its field comparative approach it offers a concept of trust for science studies which can be discussed, expanded and modified to apply to further research specialties, disciplines and areas of scientific work.

A case study of the epistemic function of citations - Implications for citation-based science mapping.

Velden, T. (2021, Juli).
A case study of the epistemic function of citations - Implications for citation-based science mapping. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 18th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2021), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract

The use of citations as indicators of topical relatedness of publications is common in the algorithmic mapping of the structure of science. References to source documents, however, may serve a variety of epistemic functions, and hence represent rather different dimensions of topical relatedness. They may pertain to the research methods used, the empirical objects studied, the theoretical resources build on, the research questions pursued, or the external motivation for and relevance of the work. In this qualitative case study, we explore the diversity in topical dimensions along which publications are linked in citation networks.

Explaining field specific forms of sharing – The influence of epistemic conditions.

Velden, T. (2021, Mai).
Explaining field specific forms of sharing – The influence of epistemic conditions. In E. Barlösius & N. Taubert (Vorsitz), In- and Outside Open Science. auf der Konferenz STS Conference Graz 2021 - Critical lssues In Science, Technology and Society Studies, Annual Conference of the Science Technology and Society Unit of the Institute of Interactive Systems and Data Science of Graz University of Technology, the Inter-University Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture (IFZ) and the Institute for Advanced Studies of Science, Technology and Society (IAS-STS)., Graz, Österreich.
Abstract

Open science advocates and an increasing number of political stakeholders and research funding agencies encourage researchers to publicly share the various instantiations of scientific knowledge that are generated during the research process, in particular research data, but also computer code, method protocols, or material specimens. Critical for the success of this vision is the readiness of research groups to share those tools and resources that they have created. The study I will present seeks to contribute to a theory of field-specific forms of sharing by looking specifically at the question how sharing decisions are influenced by the epistemic conditions for research in a field.

Field-specific forms of the scientific reception process and reuse decisions.

Schwichtenberg, N. (2020, August).
Field-specific forms of the scientific reception process and reuse decisions. Vortrag auf der EASST/4S 2020 Locating and Timing Matters: Significance and agency of STS in emerging worlds. 18.-21.08.2020, Prague, Czech Republic.

A comparative approach to field-specific forms of sharing.

Velden, T., & Schwichtenberg, N. (2020, August).
A comparative approach to field-specific forms of sharing. Vortrag auf der EASST/4S 2020 Locating and Timing Matters: Significance and agency of STS in emerging worlds, 18.8.-21.08.2020, Prague, Czech Republic.

Fachspezifische Formen von Open Science.

Velden, T. (2020, Juni).
Fachspezifische Formen von Open Science. Vortrag auf dem Treffen der UNIWiND Open Science AG, 16.06.2020.

Vertrauen in Wissen - Gedanken zu einer vergleichenden ethnographischen Feldstudie zum Verständnis der kulturtypischen Konstruktion von Un-/Gewissheit in der Wissensproduktion.

Schwichtenberg, N. (2019, Oktober).
Vertrauen in Wissen - Gedanken zu einer vergleichenden ethnographischen Feldstudie zum Verständnis der kulturtypischen Konstruktion von Un-/Gewissheit in der Wissensproduktion. Vortrag auf dem 3.Kongress der Wissenssoziologie (Arbeitskreis: Ethnographie), 09.-11.10.2019, Koblenz.

Challenges of interpreting topic maps of research specialties: a case study of invasion biology.

Velden, T. (2019, September).
Challenges of interpreting topic maps of research specialties: a case study of invasion biology. Vortrag auf dem Workshop " Topic Construction " , Technische Universität Berlin, 19.-20.09.2019, Berlin.

How to interpret algorithmically constructed topical structures of research specialties? A case study comparing an internal and an external mapping of the topical structure of invasion biology.

Velden, T. (2019, September).
How to interpret algorithmically constructed topical structures of research specialties? A case study comparing an internal and an external mapping of the topical structure of invasion biology. Vortrag auf der 17th International Conference of Scientometrics & Infometrics, 02.-09.09.2019, Rome, Italy.

Field Specific Forms of Open Science.

Velden, T. (2019, Mai).
Field Specific Forms of Open Science. Vortrag auf dem 1st Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Workshop, 02.-03.05.2019, Vienna, Austria.

Exploration of reproducibility issues in scientometric research.

Velden, T., Hinze, S., Scharnhorst, A., Schneider, J., & Waltman, L. (2018, September).
Exploration of reproducibility issues in scientometric research. Special Track on " Reproducibility in Scientometrics " . 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), September 12-14, 2018, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Head of Junior research group

Theresa Velden
Dr. Theresa Velden Head +49 30 2064177-51

Members

Anastasiia Tcypina