Open Science and Epistemic Diversity: Friends or Foes?

Abstract I argue that Open Science as currently conceptualized and implemented does not take sufficient account of epistemic diversity within research. I use three case studies to exemplify how Open Science threatens to privilege some forms of inquiry over others, thus exasperating divides within and across systems of practice, and overlooking important sources and forms of epistemic diversity. Building on insights from pluralist philosophy, I then identify four aspects of diverse research practices that should serve as reference points for debates around Open Science: (1) specificity to local conditions, (2) entrenchment within repertoires, (3) permeability to newcomers, and (4) demarcation strategies.

[1]  Sabina Leonelli,et al.  Data Science in Times of Pan(dem)ic , 2020, Issue 3.1, Winter 2021.

[2]  Erik Lieungh,et al.  The Future of Open Science , 2020 .

[3]  Stephan Guttinger The limits of replicability , 2020, European Journal for Philosophy of Science.

[4]  René von Schomberg,et al.  Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century , 2019, Front. Big Data.

[5]  Uljana Feest Why Replication Is Overrated , 2019, Philosophy of Science.

[6]  Felipe Romero Philosophy of Science and The Replicability Crisis , 2019, Philosophy Compass.

[7]  Kevin C Elliott,et al.  Making Open Science Work for Science and Society , 2019, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  R. Cook-Deegan,et al.  The Bermuda Triangle: The Pragmatics, Policies, and Principles for Data Sharing in the History of the Human Genome Project , 2018, Journal of the History of Biology.

[9]  Sabina Leonelli,et al.  Rethinking Reproducibility as a Criterion for Research Quality , 2018, Including a Symposium on Mary Morgan: Curiosity, Imagination, and Surprise.

[10]  Uljana Feest Phenomena and Objects of Research in the Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences , 2017, Philosophy of Science.

[11]  Sabina Leonelli,et al.  Beyond the digital divide: Towards a situated approach to open data , 2017 .

[12]  S. Leonelli Global Data Quality Assessment and the Situated Nature of "Best" Research Practices in Biology , 2017, Data Sci. J..

[13]  Sabina Leonelli,et al.  How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research , 2016, Science, technology & human values.

[14]  Sabina Leonelli,et al.  Repertoires: A post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research. , 2016, Studies in history and philosophy of science.

[15]  Robert Chapman,et al.  Evidential Reasoning in Archaeology , 2016 .

[16]  Sabina Leonelli,et al.  How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice , 2016, Bulletin of science, technology & society.

[17]  Benedikt Fecher,et al.  Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought , 2013 .

[18]  N. Nersessian,et al.  The creative industry of integrative systems biology , 2013 .

[19]  Nancy Cartwright,et al.  Are RCTs the Gold Standard? , 2007 .

[20]  H. Longino The Fate of Knowledge , 2001 .

[21]  Steven L. Goldman,et al.  Technology and Human Values , 1981 .