当前位置: X-MOL 学术Lang. Learn. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Open Research Practices and Cultural Change: A Commentary on “(Why) Are Open Research Practices the Future for the Study of Language Learning?”
Language Learning ( IF 5.240 ) Pub Date : 2023-05-11 , DOI: 10.1111/lang.12583
Isabel Steinhardt, Sylvi Mauermeister, Rebecca Schmidt

In their article, Marsden and Morgan-Short argue that “open research is indeed a large part of our future, and most—if not all—challenges are surmountable, but doing so requires significant changes for many aspects of the research process.” We share Marsden and Morgan-Short's premise that open research practices will play an important role in the future but that many questions about how to implement them successfully are still open and need to be discussed. Taking up and extending their thoughts on the cultural embeddedness of open research practices, this commentary argues that open research can only be the future if there is a cultural change based on changes in practices. We ask why and how change can occur from a praxeological perspective.

From the perspective of a theory of practice, it can be assumed that a change in practices of science at the micro level can lead to a change in the science system as a whole (Bourdieu, 1977). In addition, practices change in reciprocal interaction with surrounding structures, which must also be considered. Therefore, the following conditions are important:
  • First, there must be a trigger, a reason why individuals begin to change their practices. For the science system, this reason is the crisis of science, which consists of the replication crisis, questionable research practices (e.g., p-hacking), the quantification of research output, and the loss of public trust in science (Saltelli & Funtowicz, 2017).
  • Second, motivation of science and society must be considered. As central motives for the establishment of open research practices, Marsden and Morgan-Short name political frameworks (UNESCO), democratic values (i.e., “democratic and community-spirited values of the open research movement”), and scientific theoretical arguments (i.e., “the drive for transparency increases our general sense of epistemological responsibility for pursuing and reporting true findings”). In addition to the motives mentioned by Marsden and Morgan-Short, we believe that too little attention has been paid to important motives for scientists to engage in open research practices: the requirements of third-party funding and the discoverability of publications through open access and the associated prospect of high citation counts. Third-party funding, citation indexes, and rankings play a central role in furthering academic careers. In our view, these motives could be a key driver for the establishment of open research practices. After all, these motives are already being served within existing structures.
  • Third, researchers who have already adopted open research practices and who have sufficient cultural capital and reputation to implement appropriate changes are needed as role models. Such role models are crucial because the goal of cultural change is the transformation of established practices. These new practices need to be exemplified by holders of capital in order to reduce fears of individual disadvantage, for example, among young researchers.
When cultural change occurs (i.e., when practices in disciplinary cultures change), it is accompanied by a change in structures and power positions in the respective field or disciplinary culture (Trowler et al., 2014). Processes of change are therefore contested because they are associated with shifts in power. Marsden and Morgan-Short have already touched on some points where a shift of power in the field or disciplinary culture can become visible: the struggle between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research; the status of replication studies; the deepening of social and economic inequalities (i.e., the Global South is largely excluded from open research practices); and changes in common conceptions of research quality. In order to anticipate the negative effects of open research practices, these struggles have been discussed in various ways in the open science movement (e.g., see Heck et al., 2023):
  • First, if replication were introduced as the new gold standard, it could devalue qualitative research because, when conducting interviews or ethnographic observations, the researcher is involved in what is happening, which is why replication is generally difficult. Therefore, qualitative research is subject to the quality criteria of transparency and intersubjective traceability rather than the criteria of objectivity, validity, or reliability.
  • Second, it is to be feared that the regional inequalities in the science system that Marsden and Morgan-Short have identified will not be significantly reduced by open access alone in the medium term, particularly without further readjustment, and that the relative differences will remain (e.g., even if all publications in the Global South were open access).
  • Third, other relevant dimensions of inequality in science, such as gender (e.g., the Matilda effect, which describes, among other things, that scientific contributions in gender-mixed teams are more likely to be attributed to men) or publication cultures (e.g., emphasis on [online] journals vs. [print] monographs and related differences in the opportunity to be cited), also remain relatively unconsidered.
  • Fourth, Marsden and Morgan-Short's call to link open data practices to rewards could also disadvantage research areas that work with vulnerable groups, because (video or audio) data from specific individuals have strict data protection and ethic regulations that make it difficult to share these data openly. Therefore, in qualitative research, there is a lot of discussion about repositories (data infrastructures) that enable the secure reuse of sensitive (personal) data and thus allow researchers to establish open research practices, and less consideration given to awards (Steinhardt et al. 2021).
  • Finally, given the existing regional disparities in access to open research that Marsden and Morgan-Short identified, the geographical differences in the quality and quantity of professional support structures should be considered. We assume that science management structures (e.g., administrative professionals providing support for various research activities such as data management) and data infrastructures will become increasingly important resources for the establishment of open research practices. However, such support structures exist mainly in the Global North, but they are less established in the Global South (Kerridge & Scott, 2018).

Marsden and Morgan-Short's article identified and comprehensively reflected on the opportunities and challenges of open research. This makes it a wonderful starting point for exposing practices in science and the prevailing inequalities of the science system. Therefore, to reduce inequalities in an open research culture, researchers must continue to engage in a critical reflection and analysis of open science practices.



中文翻译:

开放研究实践和文化变革:评论“(为什么)开放研究实践是语言学习研究的未来?”

在他们的文章中,Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 认为“开放研究确实是我们未来的很大一部分,而且大多数(如果不是全部)挑战是可以克服的,但这样做需要对研究过程的许多方面进行重大改变。” 我们同意 Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 的前提,即开放研究实践将在未来发挥重要作用,但关于如何成功实施它们的许多问题仍然悬而未决,需要讨论。这篇评论采纳并扩展了他们对开放研究实践的文化嵌入性的思考,认为只有在实践变化的基础上进行文化变革,开放研究才能成为未来。我们从人类行为学的角度询问为什么以及如何发生变化。

从实践理论的角度来看,可以假设微观层面科学实践的变化会导致整个科学体系的变化(Bourdieu,1977 。此外,实践在与周围结构的相互作用中发生变化,这也是必须考虑的。因此,以下条件很重要:
  • 首先,必须有一个触发因素,即个人开始改变其做法的原因。对于科学系统来说,这个原因就是科学的危机,它包括复制危机、有问题的研究实践(例如,p -hacking)、研究产出的量化以及公众对科学的信任丧失(Saltelli & Funtowicz,2017 年)。
  • 其次,必须考虑科学和社会的动机。作为建立开放研究实践的核心动机,Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 命名为政治框架(联合国教科文组织)、民主价值观(即“开放研究运动的民主和社区精神价值观”)和科学理论论证(即, “透明度的驱动力增强了我们追求和报告真实发现的认识论责任感”)。除了 Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 提到的动机外,我们认为对科学家参与开放研究实践的重要动机关注太少:第三方资助的要求以及通过开放获取和出版的可发现性高引用次数的相关前景。第三方资助、引文索引、排名在促进学术生涯方面发挥着核心作用。我们认为,这些动机可能是建立开放研究实践的关键驱动力。毕竟,这些动机已经​​在现有结构中得到满足。
  • 第三,需要已经采用开放式研究实践并拥有足够的文化资本和声誉来实施适当变革的研究人员作为榜样。这种榜样至关重要,因为文化变革的目标是转变既定做法。这些新做法需要资本持有者举例说明,以减少对个人劣势的恐惧,例如,在年轻研究人员中。
当文化发生变化时(即,当学科文化的实践发生变化时),它伴随着相应领域或学科文化中结构和权力地位的变化(Trowler 等人,2014 年). 因此,变革过程是有争议的,因为它们与权力的转移有关。Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 已经触及了该领域或学科文化中权力转移可能变得明显的一些要点:定性、定量和混合方法研究之间的斗争;复制研究的状态;社会和经济不平等的加深(即,全球南方在很大程度上被排除在开放研究实践之外);以及研究质量的共同概念的变化。为了预测开放研究实践的负面影响,开放科学运动以各种方式讨论了这些斗争(例如,参见 Heck 等人,2023 年
  • 首先,如果将复制作为新的黄金标准引入,它可能会贬低定性研究的价值,因为在进行访谈或人种学观察时,研究人员会参与到正在发生的事情中,这就是复制通常很困难的原因。因此,定性研究受制于透明度和主体间可追溯性的质量标准,而不是客观性、有效性或可靠性的标准。
  • 其次,令人担忧的是,Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 所确定的科学系统中的区域不平等现象在中期不会仅通过开放获取而显着减少,尤其是在没有进一步调整的情况下,而且相对差异将继续存在(例如,即使全球南方的所有出版物都是开放获取的)。
  • 第三,科学不平等的其他相关方面,例如性别(例如,玛蒂尔达效应,除其他外,它描述了性别混合团队中的科学贡献更有可能归因于男性)或出版文化(例如,强调[在线]期刊与[印刷]专着以及被引用机会的相关差异)也相对未被考虑。
  • 第四,Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 将开放数据实践与奖励联系起来的呼吁也可能不利于与弱势群体合作的研究领域,因为来自特定个人的(视频或音频)数据具有严格的数据保护和道德规范,因此难以共享这些数据公开。因此,在定性研究中,有很多关于存储库(数据基础设施)的讨论,这些存储库可以安全地重用敏感(个人)数据,从而允许研究人员建立开放的研究实践,而很少考虑奖励(Steinhardt 等人,2016 年)。2021 年)。
  • 最后,鉴于 Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 指出的开放研究机会存在地区差异,应考虑专业支持结构在质量和数量上的地域差异。我们假设科学管理结构(例如,为数据管理等各种研究活动提供支持的行政专业人员)和数据基础设施将成为建立开放研究实践的越来越重要的资源。然而,这种支持结构主要存在于全球北方,但在全球南方则较少(Kerridge & Scott,2018)。

Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 的文章确定并全面反映了开放研究的机遇和挑战。这使它成为揭露科学实践和科学系统普遍存在的不平等现象的绝佳起点。因此,为了减少开放研究文化中的不平等,研究人员必须继续对开放科学实践进行批判性反思和分析。

更新日期:2023-05-16
down
wechat
bug