The Open Science (OS) agenda has potentially massive cultural, organizational and infrastructural consequences. Ambitions for OS-driven policies have proliferated, within which researchers are expected to publish their scientific data. Significant research has been devoted to studying the issues associated with managing Open Research Data. Digital curation, as it is typically known, seeks to assess data management issues to ensure its long-term value and encourage secondary use. Hitherto, relatively little interest has been shown in examining the immense gap that exists between the OS grand vision and researchers’ actual data practices. Our specific contribution is to examine research data practices before systematic attempts at curation are made. We suggest that interdisciplinary ethnographically-driven contexts offer a perspicuous opportunity to understand the Data Curation and Research Data Management issues that can problematize uptake. These relate to obvious discrepancies between Open Research Data policies and subject-specific research practices and needs. Not least, it opens up questions about how data is constituted in different disciplinary and interdisciplinary contexts. We present a detailed empirical account of interdisciplinary ethnographically-driven research contexts in order to clarify critical aspects of the OS agenda and how to realize its benefits, highlighting three gaps: between policy and practice, in knowledge, and in tool use and development.

中文翻译：

---

开放科学的三个空白

开放科学（OS）议程可能会产生巨大的文化，组织和基础设施后果。操作系统驱动策略的野心激增，预计研究人员将在其中发布其科学数据。大量研究致力于研究与管理开放研究数据相关的问题。众所周知，数字策展旨在评估数据管理问题，以确保其长期价值并鼓励二次使用。迄今为止，在研究OS总体愿景与研究人员的实际数据实践之间存在的巨大差距方面，人们表现出的兴趣相对较小。我们的具体贡献是在研究数据实践之前系统地尝试进行策展。我们建议，跨学科的人种学驱动的环境提供一个明显的机会来理解可能会影响采用率的数据管理和研究数据管理问题。这些与开放研究数据政策与特定学科的研究实践和需求之间明显的差异有关。尤其重要的是，它提出了有关在不同学科和跨学科环境中如何构成数据的问题。为了阐明OS议程的关键方面以及如何实现OS议程的利益，我们提供了跨学科的人种学驱动的研究环境的详细实证说明，突出了三个差距：政策与实践，知识以及工具使用与开发之间的差距。