Search

The presentation, delivered during the ON-MERRIT final event "Ensuring Equity in Open Science" on 22 March 2022, presents the results of the research strand investigatingtherole of Open Access and Open Science resources and public engagement in policy-making, to help understand Matthew effects within policy-making and provide evidence to mitigate these effects.&nbsp

The results summarised in this deliverable are intended to enable Open Science policy to move beyond the current state-of-the-art to better incorporate a self-reflexive critique of the consequences of policy interventions and to reveal gaps and deficiencies in current policy measures. This the project hopes to achieve by making evidence-based policy recommendations on how stakeholders(Research Performing Organisations, Research Funders, and other stakeholders) should amend indicators and reward/incentive schemes to address and/or mitigate these factors, thus breaking new ground for equitable Responsible Research and Innovation. This deliverable is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a systematic Scoping Review of current evidence on ON-MERRIT’s major focus of dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in Open Science, with reference to related factors in RRI. Section 3 presents an overview of the findings from ON-MERRIT’s research into research cultures, support and incentives (deriving mainly from Work Package 3), including reference to specific findings of relevance to ON-MERRIT’s target Sustainable Development Goals. Section 4 presents an overview of the findings from ON-MERRIT’s research into Innovation and industry (Work Package 4), including reference to specific findings of relevance to ON-MERRIT’s target SDGs. Section 5 presents an overview of the findings from ON-MERRIT’s research into Policy-making and societal actors (Work Package 5), including reference to specific findings of relevance to ON-MERRIT’s target SDGs. Section 6 presents findings from across the project on issues related to gender equity and the transition to Open Science and RRI. Section 7 concludes by reviewing key findings and relating this to the final tasks of ON-MERRIT to create policy recommendations.

The ON-MERRIT project aims to critically interrogate whether Open Science (OS) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) live up to the positive claims of their proponents in a multitude of ways and whether the Matthew effect in academia, or other forms of cumulative advantage and disadvantage, may be present within or even exacerbated by OS and RRI practices. We set this project against the backdrop of the grand societal challenges that are reflected in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which imply required collaboration between research scientists, policy-makers, civil society actors and broader publics. Reflecting this context, we focus our work within this project on three relevant domains: agriculture, climate, and health. Of particular interest to ON-MERRIT Task 5.3, on which this deliverable reports, is whether OS does in fact support scientific uptake by policy-makers, and, to the second point, whether the Matthew effect or other forms of cumulative advantage or disadvantage may be at play and impacting participation in policy-making. We approach this research with recognition of the fact that, as yet, there is little empirical evidence as to the impact of OS practices on research uptake by policy-makers—a finding established by the earlier ON-MERRIT Deliverable 5.1 (Reichmann, Wieser, and Ross-Hellauer 2020). We also recognize that RRI is intended to equitably reconfigure the science-society relationship by bringing together public policy, societal relevance and effective implementation in novel ways, drawing on elaborated methods and conceptual frameworks from the long history of negotiating the science-society-relationship. To that end, researchers who conduct projects aligned with RRI principles and practices work with a broad range of societal actors to engage them in participatory practices that seek to provide a knowledge basis for policy-making. As such, these researchers are often important gatekeepers as well as enablers for engagement in participatory research. In response to these conditions, we ask two primary research questions (and two sub-questions): RQ1: What factors influence scientific uptake by policy-makers? RQ2: Which societal actors, both within and outside of academia, participate in OS and RRI research and policy-making? Which societal actors are excluded, and why? Who influences public participation in policy-making? To respond to these questions, we conducted a qualitative study composed of in-depth interviews and workshops with policy-active researchers who either practice RRI or whose research resonates with RRI practices. The participants, gathered from diverse institutions across the EU and beyond, participated in one of three workshops focused on ON-MERRIT’s three domains of interest: climate, agriculture and health. Our workshops, guided by a facilitator from our team, guided participants through three discussions, focused on 1. How to further enable the uptake of scientific research in the process of policy-making; 2. How to improve equality in representation, access and impact in policy-making in terms of individuals who have access to this sphere and in terms of whose interests are (or are not) represented; and 3. Whether OS can change the uptake of science in policy-making. Our team collaboratively coded and analyzed transcriptions of workshops and interviews and worked collaboratively with participants to co-create preliminary findings during a later workshop. Based on these findings, we conclude that while there are several key factors that influence scientific uptake by policy-makers, OS is not chief among them. Additionally, OS and RRI, as they are currently practised within the contexts of academic and scientific institutions, are not doing enough and are not yet widely enough adopted to have a significant impact on expanding equitable participation in scientific knowledge production and policy-making. Further, we conclude that the Matthew effect and other forms of cumulative advantage and disadvantage are present within both processes, and are interacting with historical systems of inequality, including racism, sexism, ageism, classism and the lingering effects of colonialism. Based on these findings, we offer selected recommendations to researchers, funders, and academic and scientific institutional leaders.

The presentation attached has been discussed at theEASST/4S 2020 conference titled “Locating and Timing Matters: Significance and agency of STS in emerging worlds"

This Data Management Plan (DMP) contains a description of all datasets to be collected, generated or re-used as part of ON-MERRIT’s research activities. This includes, firstly, the purpose of data collection (i.e. research questions), data origin, type, sharing and utility, as well as expected file size and format. Datasets for ON-MERRIT include primary data collected via surveys, interviews and workshops, as well as compiled, processed data generated from the knowledge graph Microsoft Academic Graph, the CORE aggregator, and Google Patents Public Data. Second, this DMP outlines measures taken to ensure compliance with the FAIR data principles.1 Most datasets generated during ON-MERRIT will be made findable and openly accessible (whenever possible, depending on data protection requirements) via the repository Zenodo together with detailed metadata and a digital object identifier. To make data interoperable, the consortium will use Open Source software and file formats wherever possible. To enable and stimulate re-use of data, analysis code will be shared via GitHub, appropriate open licences (CC-BY or similar) will be assigned, and quality is ensured via internal review processes. Third, the DMP describes the allocation of resources for data management, storage solutions and back-up plans during the project, long-term retention and data security, ensured via encryption and password protection. It finishes with a description of technical and organizational measures put in place for the protection of personal data, including collection and internal sharing of personal data (where necessary), anonymisation and pseudonymisation techniques used before making data openly accessible, and informed consent procedures. This DMP is a living document that will be regularly updated by all partners. At a minimum, it will be updated once after the end of the first reporting period (30 September 2020, report deadline 30 November 2020), at the end of phase 2 (30 September 2021) and, if additional changes are required, one final time before the final review (3 March 2022).

Conference Proceedings of the STS Conference Graz 2019, Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies, 6 - 7 May 2019

The existence of a “Matthew Effect” (a feedback loop where (dis)advantage tends to beget further (dis)advantage) in science has long been recognised. In 1968, Merton[1] proposed that already successful scientists receive disproportionately high rewards in comparison to less-famous counterparts. Subsequent studies have identified the Matthew Effect at work based on criteria like institutions, departments, geographical proximity and countries, as well as the individual attributes of researchers (e.g., race, gender). It is at work across scientific endeavours, including peer review, public engagement, article citations, funding acquisition and prestige public engagement, article citations, funding acquisition and prestige as measured via awards/prizes. Open Science promises to fundamentally transform scholarship to bring greater transparency, inclusivity and participation to research processes, and increase the academic, economic and societal impact of research outputs. Yet access is not made uniform simply because resources are made available via the Internet. Re-use and participation must also be accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, technological readiness and motivation) to take up these resources. Absorptive capacity varies considerably. This is true of institutions, businesses and people. Such differences are exacerbated by factors like geographic location, language abilities, technological skills, educational levels and access to basic equipment (including, e.g., Internet access). Those in possession of such capacities will remain at an advantage, with the effect that Open Science’s laudable agenda of inclusivity is put at risk by conditions of “cumulative advantage” (“Matthew Effect”). This presentation outlines our first findings on the extent to which Open Science practices (OA, FAIR data, open peer review, etc.) are subject to the Matthew Effect and opens up to critical discussion the extent to which current strategies for achieving Open Science may actually exacerbate or introduce inequalities. [1] Merton, R.K., 1968. The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

Im Zuge der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde der Versuch unternommen, das Leistungsvermögen audiovisueller Medien als Werkzeuge des Lehr- und Lernprozesses zu bestimmen. Die Abhandlungen sollten die Vielfalt und Variabilität an Möglichkeiten verdeutlichen. In gleichem Maße galt es aber auch die Grenzen aufzuzeigen und etwaig negative Effekte hervorzuheben. Die zentrale Fragestellung der Arbeit ist daher wie folgt zu formulieren: In welchen Bereichen, in welcher Form, wie und in welchem Ausmaß können visuelle Medien zur Aktivierung der Lernmotivation, zur Vermittlung von Inhalten und zu einer nachhaltigen Festigung der Inhalte im Lernprozess beitragen? In einem ersten Schritt wurden neuronale und psychosoziale Verarbeitungsprozesse untersucht und deren Einfluss auf den Lernerfolg skizziert. Die Auseinandersetzungen führten zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Lernleistung der Schülerinnen und Schüler allen voran durch motivationspsychologische wie emotionale Aspekte bestimmt wird. Lernvideos können hierbei in unterschiedlichster Form, etwa durch überraschende Effekte, veranschaulichende Bilderreihen oder melodische Klänge, zu einer entsprechenden Stimmung wie Lernmotivation beitragen. In einem zweiten Schritt wurde der didaktische Aufbau audiovisueller Medien untersucht. Je nach dem Vermittlungsinteresse der Lehrenden konnten hierbei insgesamt drei Kategorien an Lehrfilmen differenziert werden. Bei Informationszentrierten Videos steht die Vermittlung von Wissen im Vordergrund des Interesses. Anleitungen oder Anweisungen sind als typische Beispiele anzuführen. Impulsvideos sind hingegen an praktische Aufgaben geknüpft. Das ANHANG 141 vorrangige Ziel liegt hierbei vor allem im Erwecken von Aufmerksamkeit und Interesse begründet. Problemorientierte Videos sind ebenfalls mit realitätsbezogenen Fragestellungen verbunden. Die Rezipienten werden aber bereits bei der Wiedergabe in das Geschehen mit eingebunden. Im dritten Teil der Arbeit wurden bisherige Forschungen zum didaktischen Einsatz von Lehr- und Lernvideos herangezogen und analysiert. Die Untersuchungen verdeutlichten die didaktischen Potenziale audiovisueller Medien, ermöglichten aber auch einen Einblick in etwaige Grenzen dieser Lehrmittel. So fördert der Einsatz von Videos die Individualisierung des Unterrichts, ermöglicht die Darstellung komplexer, realitätsbezogener und für das menschliche Auge ansonsten nicht fassbarer Sachverhalte oder fördert die Verknüpfung formeller und informeller Lernwelten. Auf der anderen Seite ist die Erstellung von Lehrfilmen immer mit einem hohen Kostenaufwand und einer entsprechenden didaktischen wie fachlichen Kompetenz der Produzenten verbunden. Für den Bereich des mobilen Lernens ergeben sich durch Videomaterialien zwar interessante neue Möglichkeiten der Wissensaneignung. Die Technologie ist hierfür aber noch zu unausgereift. Insgesamt konnte eine hohe Akzeptanz dieser Lehrmethode festgestellt werden. Videos sind aber stets in Zusammenhang mit anderen Arbeitsmaterialien zu verwenden und die Schülerinnen und Schüler schätzen zudem die damit verbundenen face-to-face Gespräche im Klassenverbund. Aus diesem Grund sind Lehr- und Lernvideos in eine gemeinsame Lernumgebung zu integrieren. Im abschließenden Kapitel beschäftigen sich die Ausführungen mit den Möglichkeiten dieser Plattformen, die didaktischen Stärken von Videos bestmöglich zu unterstützen und zu fördern. Im Zuge der Arbeit konnten drei Gruppen von Lernumgebungen – Videoportale, Online Storage Lösungen und Lernmanagementsysteme – gebildet werden. Videoportale bieten dabei die größte Auswahl an Materialien. Jedoch ist hierbei keine zentrale Steuerung des Lerngeschehens möglich. Online Storage Lösungen schaffen einen zentralen Bezugspunkt für die Lernenden, sind aber im Grunde zur Sicherung von Daten konzipiert. Lernmanagementsysteme bieten hingegen die Möglichkeit, Videos als Gestaltungsmittel eines interaktiven Lernprozesses mit einzubeziehen. Dadurch werden die Potenziale dieser Lehrmittel optimal genutzt.

The main ethical principle in prenatal testing is the autonomous decision of the pregnant woman concerned. However, recent developments in prenatal testing undermine this model. The overall number of invasive prenatal examinations has dropped significantly. Yet, the amount of pathologic results has increased. Due to the improvement in ultrasound diagnostics the predictability of possible disabilities or diseases of the unborn child has increased substantially. As a result of this pregnant women can take the decision whether or not to undergo invasive prenatal examinations on the basis of personal risk "evidence" produced earlier on by means of non-invasive screening. It can be questioned, how autonomous decisions can be if they are increasingly pre-informed through upstream riskassessments on the basis of non-invasive screening. Particularly ultrasound screening is often carried out without thorough counselling and sometimes even without consent. The concept of autonomy is difficult to uphold if women do not deliberately decide whether to undergo non-invasive screening, but the moment of such a deliberate decision comes only after positive screening results. Taking into account that public discourses have rather focused on other aspects of genetic or reproductive technologies such as stem cell research or pre-implantation diagnosis it is important to analyse how technological innovations transform medical practices without a re-articulation on a discursive level as I will try to show in this paper for the case of prenatal testing., Science, Technology & Innovation Studies

Bernhard Wieser, Dokumentation des Forschungstages 2003, 29.10.2003, Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt

Bernhard Wieser, Dokumentation des Forschungstages „Interventionswissenschaft – Interventionsforschung“, 30.10.2002, Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt

The ON-MERRIT project aims to critically interrogate whether Open Science (OS) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) live up to the positive claims of their proponents in a multitude of ways and whether the Matthew effect in academia, or other forms of cumulative advantage and disadvantage, may be present within or even exacerbated by OS and RRI practices. We set this project against the backdrop of the grand societal challenges that are reflected in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which imply required collaboration between research scientists, policy-makers, civil society actors and broader publics. Reflecting this context, we focus our work within this project on three relevant domains: agriculture, climate, and health. Of particular interest to ON-MERRIT Task 5.3, on which this deliverable reports, is whether OS does in fact support scientific uptake by policy-makers, and, to the second point, whether the Matthew effect or other forms of cumulative advantage or disadvantage may be at play and impacting participation in policy-making. We approach this research with recognition of the fact that, as yet, there is little empirical evidence as to the impact of OS practices on research uptake by policy-makers—a finding established by the earlier ON-MERRIT Deliverable 5.1 (Reichmann, Wieser, and Ross-Hellauer 2020). We also recognize that RRI is intended to equitably reconfigure the science-society relationship by bringing together public policy, societal relevance and effective implementation in novel ways, drawing on elaborated methods and conceptual frameworks from the long history of negotiating the science-society-relationship. To that end, researchers who conduct projects aligned with RRI principles and practices work with a broad range of societal actors to engage them in participatory practices that seek to provide a knowledge basis for policy-making. As such, these researchers are often important gatekeepers as well as enablers for engagement in participatory research. In response to these conditions, we ask two primary research questions (and two sub-questions): RQ1: What factors influence scientific uptake by policy-makers? RQ2: Which societal actors, both within and outside of academia, participate in OS and RRI research and policy-making? Which societal actors are excluded, and why? Who influences public participation in policy-making? To respond to these questions, we conducted a qualitative study composed of in-depth interviews and workshops with policy-active researchers who either practice RRI or whose research resonates with RRI practices. The participants, gathered from diverse institutions across the EU and beyond, participated in one of three workshops focused on ON-MERRIT’s three domains of interest: climate, agriculture and health. Our workshops, guided by a facilitator from our team, guided participants through three discussions, focused on 1. How to further enable the uptake of scientific research in the process of policy-making; 2. How to improve equality in representation, access and impact in policy-making in terms of individuals who have access to this sphere and in terms of whose interests are (or are not) represented; and 3. Whether OS can change the uptake of science in policy-making. Our team collaboratively coded and analyzed transcriptions of workshops and interviews and worked collaboratively with participants to co-create preliminary findings during a later workshop. Based on these findings, we conclude that while there are several key factors that influence scientific uptake by policy-makers, OS is not chief among them. Additionally, OS and RRI, as they are currently practised within the contexts of academic and scientific institutions, are not doing enough and are not yet widely enough adopted to have a significant impact on expanding equitable participation in scientific knowledge production and policy-making. Further, we conclude that the Matthew effect and other forms of cumulative advantage and disadvantage are present within both processes, and are interacting with historical systems of inequality, including racism, sexism, ageism, classism and the lingering effects of colonialism. Based on these findings, we offerselected recommendations to researchers, funders, and academic and scientific institutional leaders.

not available.