Programme

In the Humanities, data are difficult to define and all the more so to be properly curated and managed. They can be small and smart, rich and complex, non-standardised in format, without common or consistent metadata and ontologies, and can be subject to complex rights issues. Machine readable tools and materials are rarely available and often incomplete or non-interoperable.

We are presenting the ongoing works and the preliminary outputs of two complementary initiatives, the CO-OPERAS Implementation Network within GoFAIR and the ALLEA e-Humanities Working Group, two initiatives focusing on community needs and supporting the development of practical recommendations for best practices and services that enable the integration of the long tail of Humanities into the EOSC and more widely to adopt Open Science practices.

Our conversation will focus on discussing what data are in the Humanities, identifying the main challenges in the path towards FAIRness and providing recommendations for the digital humanities community.

In 2017, a European dialogue process led to the development of the so-called “Open Science Career Assessment Matrix” (OS-CAM). Taking the OS-CAM as a reference point, the working group “Scientific Practice” within the Alliance Initiative “Digital Information” wanted to know which open science practices are actually considered for the purpose of research assessment, which practices should eventually be considered as beneficial for advancing one’s career, and what kind of barriers one encounters when evaluating with regard to open science. Drawing on quantitative as well as qualitative information received by an online survey that led to nearly 400 responses, the presentation will highlight some interesting variations in the research community’s perception of these issues.

Open science practices aim to improve the public value of science by opening up scientific processes and outcomes to broader audiences, inside and outside of academia. Despite this ambition, the question remains how public engagement is practiced in different fields of science.

What actors are involved? What forms of engagement are used? How can they benefit science and society? What barriers have yet to be overcome? We address these questions in multiple case studies: in psychiatric research, in educational research, and in research into water quality. From each case lessons can be drawn for researchers and policy makers involved in open science. This presentation will focus on public engagement in psychiatric research, and relate the findings to the other case studies.

The global energy system is undergoing massive transformations that originate from far-reaching changes in societal, business, and technical paradigms. Data-driven energy system analysis embracing the open science paradigm is a prime tool to monitor, assess, and support necessary transformative changes. While the availability of new data collection and analysis techniques is boosting energy science, the growing degree of complexity and uncertainty through the integration of different types of data streams and numerous interlinkages within the socio-technical systems require new concepts to enable the documentation and eproducibility of scientific results. Open science research has a pivotal role to play in this respect because it enables the detection of conflicts across findings in different disciplines as well as harvests synergies between he disciplines involved. The presentationbwill discuss current practices and future directions of open, data-driven energy system research, drawing from a review of on-going practices and discussions in the European energy research community. It will also give a short introduction into the up-coming Horizon 2020 project EERAdata.

The ORION Open Science project has delivered nearly 40 different training workshops and events on Open Science for researchers and funders across Europe for over two years, and has recently created an online training course on Open Science in the Life Sciences. From the experience of doing this work the training team, based in Berlin at the Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine, have gained several key insights into what works well for delivering effective Open Science training and revealing important lessons about what training methods are effective, and what areas researchers and research managers find challenging and engaging, and what workshop participants identify as next steps. In this talk these lessons would be presented and some of the key training methods shared. These include focusing on professional benefits, emphasising concrete but achievable next steps, and encouraging peer-to-peer learning.

Open Science holds the promise to enhance science and society relationships by making scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible and re-usable for audiences beyond the ivory towers of universities and research institutions. Equity is a key aim of Open Science, but could Open Science policies actually worsen existing inequalities? Open Science needs resources (funding, time, knowledge, skills), and the traditionally advantaged groups usually have more of them. Will their privilege mean that they are the ones to benefit most?

The panel will focus on the impact of open science practices in academia, industry, and policy-making. It aims to engage researchers and Open Science practitioners who are often important gatekeepers as well as enablers for engagement in participatory research. Panellists will be asked to share their experiences with participatory processes and to reflect on possible barriers to and incentives for participation. Panellists will share their own experiences in facilitating research uptake (e.g. through participatory policy-making) and discuss the ways in which the voices of various stakeholders become effective.

Questions to be addressed: How can Open Science help to foster the uptake of scientific expertise in academia, industry, and deliberative processes (policy-making)? What other factors might affect the uptake of research in and beyond academia? Will Open Science introduce new, unintended barriers and inequalities?

Panelists:
• Dr Johanna Havemann (AfricArXiv)
• Dr Anne-Floor Scholvinck (Rathenau Instituut)
• Daniel Spichtinger (Ludwig-Boltzmann Gesellschaft)
• Dr Thed Van Leeuwen (Centre for Science and Technology Studies) (introductory remote presentation)
• Dr August Wierling (Western University of Applied Science, Norway)

Moderation: Dr Tony Ross-Hellauer (Know-Center)

Session Convenors: ON-MERRIT consortium
The project ON-MERRIT (Observing and Negating Matthew Effects in Responsible Research & Innovation Transition) aims at contributing to an equitable scientific system that rewards researchers based on merit.