This text is translated from Norwegian using GPT UiO.
Åshild Lappegard Hauge leads the research project Rethinking the Democratisation of Knowledge Production (ReDemOS). With funds from UiO:Democracy, she and her partners will investigate how Open Science can have undemocratic consequences despite its goals of democratizing knowledge production.
The project is one of three at the University of Oslo that will collectively receive 10 million NOK from UiO:Democracy (read in Norwegian).
– Open knowledge sharing sounds like a good thing for democracy on paper. Why is it important to examine the unintended consequences of open science?
– Open science is a movement that has gained significant momentum in recent years, aiming to democratize the development and sharing of knowledge worldwide. It's crucial to work towards fairer access to data, analytical methods, and knowledge regardless of geographic location, says Lappegard Hauge.
She explains that researchers in this area are particularly curious about how open science practices attempt to regulate knowledge development.
– Her er det mange ulike praksiser som foreslås i åpenheten og demokratiets navn, alt fra preregistrering av forskningsspørsmål og analyser til medborgerforskning. Vi er nysgjerrige på hvilke forståelser av demokratisering som ligger til grunn for disse praksisene og hvordan kan det sies å være demokratiserende i praksis.
– What are the potential democratic challenges of open science as practiced today?
– Our concern is that the open science practices being proposed, or even required, might have unintended undemocratic consequences, such as idealizing certain types of knowledge projects, researchers, and methodologies while excluding others. This is a trend we're observing with the increasing demands for open science practices in research funding, academic positions, and journal publication policies, she says.
Lappegard Hauge emphasizes that this challenge needs to be taken seriously to ensure that open science truly contributes to a more democratic and inclusive research landscape for knowledge creators and users.
– What do you mean by open science in this context? Many might think of "Open Access," but are you looking at it more broadly?
– Yes, we view open science as broader than open access, which focuses on access to knowledge. Open science is a broad term encompassing various goals and practices that may sometimes conflict with each other. Therefore, exploring the range of definitions and terms in use is important, says the psychology professor.
She points out that UNESCO's policy recommendations emphasize different aspects of open science compared to the approaches currently dominating the policies of many journals and research funding organizations.
– What do you hope to achieve with your group over the funded years?
– During the project, we hope to contribute to a broader understanding of how open science can foster a diverse, transparent, and inclusive research culture. We'll draw on the democratic research practices of UiO researchers, as reflected in their work and knowledge production, says Lappegard Hauge.
She also hopes that the research will raise awareness about the unintended consequences of open science.
– We plan to examine the range of different methodological and epistemological approaches, particularly focusing on social science research involving people in vulnerable positions, says Lappegard Hauge.