IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v10y2022i3p24-d862974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Science Knowledge Production: Addressing Epistemological Challenges and Ethical Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Bjørn Hofmann

    (Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130, N-0318 Oslo, Norway
    Institute for Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-2801 Gjøvik, Norway)

Abstract

Open Science (OS) is envisioned to have a wide range of benefits including being more transparent, shared, accessible, and collaboratively developed than traditional science. Despite great enthusiasm, there are also several challenges with OS. In order to ensure that OS obtains its benefits, these challenges need to be addressed. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to provide an overview of one type of challenge, i.e., epistemological challenges with OS knowledge production, and their ethical implications. Based on a literature review, it (a) reveals factors undermining the envisioned benefits of OS, (b) identifies negative effects on knowledge production, and (c) exposes epistemological challenges with the various phases of the OS process. The main epistemic challenges are related to governance, framing, looping effects, proper data procurement, validation, replication, bias, and polarization. The ethical implications are injustice, reduced benefit (efficiency), increased harm (as a consequence of poor-quality science), deception and manipulation (reduced autonomy), and lack of trustworthiness. Accordingly, to obtain the envisioned benefits of OS, we need to address these epistemological challenges and their ethical implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Bjørn Hofmann, 2022. "Open Science Knowledge Production: Addressing Epistemological Challenges and Ethical Implications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:24-:d:862974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/3/24/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/3/24/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steve McMillan & Ronald Duska & Robert Hamilton & Debra Casey, 2006. "The Ethical Dilemma of Research and Development Openness Versus Secrecy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 279-285, May.
    2. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    3. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    4. Omar Díaz & Gabriela Riquelme & Gibrán Rivera, 2021. "Sharing Research Data: An Analysis of the Interest of Social Scientists in the Context of a Mexican University," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Khalid Abbas & Ahmed Eltweri & Muhammad Kamran Nawaz & Zafar Ali, 2023. "Systematic Analysis of the Factors That Impact upon the Mindset of Knowledge Sharing Behaviour (KSB) for Individuals within Academia," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-27, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Regina Grazuleviciene & Sandra Andrusaityte & Aurimas Rapalavicius, 2021. "Measuring the Outcomes of a Participatory Research Study: Findings from an Environmental Epidemiological Study in Kaunas City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Turcan Nelly & Rusu Andrei & Cujba Rodica, 2019. "Study on the Mapping of Research Data in the Republic of Moldova in the Context of Open Science," International Journal of Advanced Statistics and IT&C for Economics and Life Sciences, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 11-22, June.
    3. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Arandjelović, Ognjen, 2023. "A Case for `Killer Robots': Why in the Long Run Martial AI May Be Good for Peace," SocArXiv 9kja8, Center for Open Science.
    5. Michael O’Grady & Eleni Mangina, 2024. "Citizen scientists—practices, observations, and experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Berendes, S. & Hilpert, S. & Günther, S. & Muschner, C. & Candas, S. & Hainsch, K. & van Ouwerkerk, J. & Buchholz, S. & Söthe, M., 2022. "Evaluating the usability of open source frameworks in energy system modelling," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    8. Nolan, Anne & Hoy, Aislinn, 2023. "Clean Air Together Dublin: Impact on air quality awareness, attitudes and behaviour," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT120, August.
    9. Sarita Albagli & Allan Yu Iwama, 2022. "Citizen science and the right to research: building local knowledge of climate change impacts," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Evelien de Hoop, 2020. "More Democratic Sustainability Governance through Participatory Knowledge Production? A Framework and Systematic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-30, July.
    11. Francesco Cappa & Stefano Franco & Federica Rosso, 2022. "Citizens and cities: Leveraging citizen science and big data for sustainable urban development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 648-667, February.
    12. Jean-Philippe Bouilloud & Ghislain Deslandes & Guillaume Mercier, 2019. "The Leader as Chief Truth Officer: The Ethical Responsibility of “Managing the Truth” in Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 1-13, June.
    13. Hou, Li & Wu, Qiang & Xie, Yundong, 2024. "Does open identity of peer reviewers positively relate to citations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    14. Nicola Moczek & Silke L. Voigt-Heucke & Kim G. Mortega & Claudia Fabó Cartas & Jörn Knobloch, 2021. "A Self-Assessment of European Citizen Science Projects on Their Contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Adelaide Martins & Manuel Castelo Branco & Pedro Novo Melo & Carolina Machado, 2022. "Sustainability in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-26, May.
    16. Mercy Gloria Ashepet & Liesbet Vranken & Caroline Michellier & Olivier Dewitte & Rodgers Mutyebere & Clovis Kabaseke & Ronald Twongyirwe & Violet Kanyiginya & Grace Kagoro-Rugunda & Tine Huyse & Liesb, 2024. "Assessing scale reliability in citizen science motivational research: lessons learned from two case studies in Uganda," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. van Ouwerkerk, Jonas & Hainsch, Karlo & Candas, Soner & Muschner, Christoph & Buchholz, Stefanie & Günther, Stephan & Huyskens, Hendrik & Berendes, Sarah & Löffler, Konstantin & Bußar, Christian & Tar, 2022. "Comparing open source power system models - A case study focusing on fundamental modeling parameters for the German energy transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Nathalie Colasanti & Chiara Fantauzzi & Rocco Frondizi, 2021. "Innovating Public Service Delivery Through Crowdsourcing: What Role for The Third Sector and Civil Society?," International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Computer Science Journals (CSC Journals), vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, February.
    19. Hosany, A. R. Shaheen & Hosany, Sameer & He, Hongwei, 2022. "Children sustainable behaviour: A review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 236-257.
    20. Julia R. Branstrator & Christina T. Cavaliere & Jonathon Day & Kelly S. Bricker, 2023. "Civic Reporting Indicators and Biocultural Conservation: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:24-:d:862974. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.