Open science in e-science : contingency or policy Export

@article{Fry2009, abstract = {Purpose – This paper seeks to discuss the question of ” openness” in e-Science.Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on 12 in-depth interviews with principalinvestigators, project managers and developers involved in UK e-Science projects, together withsupporting documentary evidence from project web sites. The approach was to explore thejuxtaposition of research governance at the institutional level and local research practices at theproject level. Interview questions focused on research inputs, software development processes, accessto resources, project documentation, dissemination of outputs and by-products, licensing issues, andinstitutional contracts.Findings – The findings suggest that, although there is a widely shared ethos of openness ineveryday research practice, there are many uncertainties and yet-to-be resolved issues, despite strongpolicy imperatives towards openly shared resources.Research limitations/implications – The paper concludes by observing a stratification ofopenness in practice and the need for more nuanced understanding of openness at the level of policymaking. This research was based on interviews within a limited number of e-Science/Social Scienceprojects and the intention is to address this in future work by scaling the study up to a survey that willreach the entire UK e-Science/Social Science community.Practical implications – The fundamental challenge in resolving openness in practice and policy,and thereby moving towards a sustainable infrastructure for e-Science, is the coordination andintegration of goals across e-Science efforts, rather than one of resolving IPR (Intellectual PropertyRights) issues, which has been the central focus of openness debates thus far.Originality/value – The question of openness has previously been posed on the macro-level ofresearch policy, e.g. whether science as a whole can be characterized as open science, or in relation tothe dissemination of published outputs, e.g. Open Access. Instead, a fine-grained perspective is takenfocusing on individual research projects and the various facets of openness in practice.Keywords Communications, Research methodsPaper type Research paper}, author = {Fry, Jenny and Schroeder, Ralph and den Besten, Matthijs}, citeulike-article-id = {4107766}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410910926103}, doi = {10.1108/00220410910926103}, journal = {Journal of Documentation}, keywords = {e-science, open, policy, science}, number = {1}, pages = {6--32}, posted-at = {2009-02-26 15:20:18}, priority = {0}, title = {Open science in e-science : contingency or policy}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410910926103}, volume = {65}, year = {2009} }

TY - JOUR ID - Fry2009 L3 - citeulike-article-id:4107766 N2 - Purpose – This paper seeks to discuss the question of “openness” in e-Science.Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on 12 in-depth interviews with principalinvestigators, project managers and developers involved in UK e-Science projects, together withsupporting documentary evidence from project web sites. The approach was to explore thejuxtaposition of research governance at the institutional level and local research practices at theproject level. Interview questions focused on research inputs, software development processes, accessto resources, project documentation, dissemination of outputs and by-products, licensing issues, andinstitutional contracts.Findings – The findings suggest that, although there is a widely shared ethos of openness ineveryday research practice, there are many uncertainties and yet-to-be resolved issues, despite strongpolicy imperatives towards openly shared resources.Research limitations/implications – The paper concludes by observing a stratification ofopenness in practice and the need for more nuanced understanding of openness at the level of policymaking. This research was based on interviews within a limited number of e-Science/Social Scienceprojects and the intention is to address this in future work by scaling the study up to a survey that willreach the entire UK e-Science/Social Science community.Practical implications – The fundamental challenge in resolving openness in practice and policy,and thereby moving towards a sustainable infrastructure for e-Science, is the coordination andintegration of goals across e-Science efforts, rather than one of resolving IPR (Intellectual PropertyRights) issues, which has been the central focus of openness debates thus far.Originality/value – The question of openness has previously been posed on the macro-level ofresearch policy, e.g. whether science as a whole can be characterized as open science, or in relation tothe dissemination of published outputs, e.g. Open Access. Instead, a fine-grained perspective is takenfocusing on individual research projects and the various facets of openness in practice.Keywords Communications, Research methodsPaper type Research paper IS - 1 JF - Journal of Documentation EP - 32 TI - Open science in e-science : contingency or policy VL - 65 SP - 6 KW - e-science KW - open KW - policy KW - science AU - Fry, Jenny AU - Schroeder, Ralph AU - den Besten, Matthijs PY - 2009/// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410910926103 ER -