Open Science: The Better Science?
SE 230 157 | 5 ECTS
| 2 SST | Winter Semester 2015/16
|
Katja Mayer
University of Vienna, Department of
Sociology
|
General Info
Introduction 01.10.2015, 09:00
Place Seminar room STS
(C0602) NIG, 1010 Wien, Universitätsstraße 7, staircase II, 6th floor
|
Overview
The notion of Open Science is enjoying
great popularity at the moment; some even go so far to call it "the
better science". The European Union has recently adopted the term Open
Science in its research framework programme, however, negotiations about
benefits and challenges of Open Science take place in many different arenas.
In general, Open Science demands the highest possible transparency,
accountability, and share-ability in knowledge production, as well as the
participation of all relevant stakeholders in the scientific process.
In this seminar we will be looking at
the diversity of Open Knowledge cultures in science and humanities.
Discussing ideal and actual realms of Open Science practices we will approach
aspects such as Open Access, Open Research Data, Open Education, Open
Evaluation, Citizen Science and Open Innovation from several perspectives,
drawing on literature from stakeholders such as science, policy, science
administration, technology, NGOs and Open Science activists. The objective is
to understand Open Science situated within the movement of Open Cultures,
therefore investigating its promising roles as change maker both in
traditional academic settings and in society at large. The focus will be
particularly on exchanges and translations of practices of science in society
and respective epistemic politics.
|
Registration
Online registration for this course is
obligatory. If you decide not to participate in the course, you can sign off
via U:SPACE online until October 19th, 2015 without negative
consequences. In this case, please also inform the lecturer and the teaching
assistants by e-mail.
Course Reader
The reader for this class costs EUR 4,50
and can be purchased at the teaching assistants’ office during their office
hours.
E-Learning Platform
This course is accompanied by the
e-learning platform moodle (http://moodle.univie.ac.at). Please test
your accounts and notify the teaching assistants if you encounter access
problems.
|
Course Outline
Date |
Time
|
Topics
|
|
01.10.15
09:00-11:30
|
Introductory meeting: course objectives and
assignments
|
|
05.11.15
09:00-11:30
|
Opening
Science – transforming knowledge practices?
Fecher,
B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: one term, five schools of
thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science (pp.
17-47). Springer Open.
Nowotny,
H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Mode 2 Revisited: The New Production
of Knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.
|
|
12.11.15
09:00-11:30
|
Open Cultures
and Open Innovation
Chesbrough,
H. (2015). From Open Science to Open Innovation. Science Business
Publishing. Available at: http://sciencebusiness.net/eventsarchive/OpenScience/OpenScience.pdf
Mayer,
K. (2015). From Science 2.0 to Open Science: Turning rhetoric into action? STCSN-eLetter,
3(1). Available at: http://stcsn.ieee.net/e-letter/stcsn-e-letter-vol-3-no-1/from-science-2-0-to-open-science
Moedas,
C. (2015). Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World. Speech 22 June
2015: Brussels, ‘A new start for Europe: Opening up to an ERA of
Innovation’ Conference. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5243_en.htm
|
|
19.11.15
09:00-11:30
|
Open Access,
Open Education and Disruptive Technologies
Herb,
U. (2010). Sociological implications of scientific publishing: Open access,
science, society, democracy, and the digital divide. First Monday, 15(2).
Daniel,
J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and
possibility. Journal of interactive Media in education, 2012(3).
|
|
26.11.15
09:00-11:30
|
Open Research
Data and Open Methods
Arzberger,
P., Schröder, P., Beaulieu, A., Bowker, G. C., Casey, K., Laaksonen, L., Moorman, D., Uhlir, P.,
& Wouters, P.
(2004). Promoting
Access to Public Research Data for Scientific, Economic, and Social
Development. Data Science Journal, 3, 135-152.
What is
Open Notebook Science: http://onsnetwork.org/what-is-open-notebook-science/
|
|
03.12.15
09:00-11:30
|
Ethos of
Science: Reproducibility and Open Evaluation
Merton,
R. K. (1973[1942]). The normative structure of science. In The
sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp.
267-278). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Open
Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to
estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 7(6), 657-660.
|
10.12.15
09:00-11:30
|
Citizen
Science and DIY Expertise
Delfanti,
A. (2011). Hacking genomes. The ethics of open and rebel biology. International
Review of Information Ethics, 15(09), 52-57.
Prainsack,
B. (2014). Understanding participation: the ‘citizen science’ of genetics. In
B. Prainsack, S. Schicktanz, & G. Werner-Felmayer (Eds.), Genetics as
Social Practice (pp. 147-164). Ashgate.
|
|
17.12.15
09:00-11:30
|
Opening Social Sciences
Miguel,
E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, et al. (2014). Promoting transparency in social
science research. Science, 343, 30-31.
Sidler,
M. (2014). Open Science and the Three Cultures: Expanding Open Science to all
Domains of Knowledge Creation. In S. Bartling, & S. Friesike (Eds.),
Opening Science (pp. 81-85). Springer Open.
|
|
07.01.16
09:00-11:30
|
Open Peer Review Session
|
Requirements for passing the course
· Regular attendance
· Reading of obligatory literature and active
involvement in discussions
· Assignments in compliance with deadlines, submitted
electronically via moodle
· Students will collaborate creating a public blog entry
towards the end of the course, which will be evaluated in an open peer review
session in the last course unit.
Assignments
For every
course unit a specific assignment will be announced. Those assignments range
from summarizing the rationale of an article to collecting information
concerning a topic mentioned in the reading on the web. The emphasis lies on
the development of questions and critical reading skills.
Acceptance of any assignment implies compliance
with the following requirements (if applicable)
· Citations are always marked and referred to in the
bibliography at the end of a text
· No unauthorized copying or pirating of existing texts,
plagiarism will not be tolerated
· Cover sheet with course title and number, name,
student ID, title of assignment/topic and date
· Style: A4 paper, 11 point font, 1 1⁄2 line spacing,
page numbers in footer, author name and text title in header, PDF Format
· Proofreading and language checks before submission of
texts
· Submission of assignments via Moodle if not required
otherwise
Attendance
Presence and participation is compulsory. Absences of
four hours at maximum are tolerated, provided that the lecturer is informed
about the absence. Absences of up to eight hours in total may be compensated by
either a deduction of grading points or/and extra-work agreed with the
lecturer. Whether compensation is possible is decided by the lecturer.
Absences of more than eight hours in total cannot be
compensated. In this case, or if the lecturer does not allow a student to
compensate absences of more than four hours, the course can not be completed
and is graded as a “fail” (5), unless there is a major and unpredictable reason
for not being able to fulfil the attendance requirements on the student’s side
(e.g. a longer illness). In such a case, the student may be de-registered from
the course without grading. It is the student’s responsibility to communicate
this in a timely manner, and to provide relevant evidence to their claims if necessary.
Whether this exception applies is decided by the vice-director of studies
responsible for the master programme.
Grading scheme
The grading of the course is
based on the separate assessment of different tasks on a scale of 1-5.
Active contribution and involvement in discussion
|
30 %
|
|
Homework / assignments
|
30 %
|
|
Presentation / Blogging
|
30 %
|
|
Formal criteria (delivery on time, citation, layout,...)
|
10 %
|
To successfully complete the course, a weighted average of at least 4,5
is required. Failure to meet the attendance regulations, to deliver course
assignments on time or to adhere to standards of academic work may result in a
deduction of points.
Important Grading Information
If not explicitly noted otherwise, all requirements
mentioned in the grading scheme and the attendance regulations must be met. If
a required task is not fulfilled, e.g. a required assignment is not handed in
or if the student does not meet the attendance requirements, this will be
considered as a discontinuation of the course. In that case, the course will be
graded as “fail” (5), unless there is a major and unpredictable reason for not
being able to fulfill the task on the student's side (e.g. a longer illness).
In such a case, the student may be de-registered from the course without
grading. It is the student’s responsibility to communicate this in a timely
manner, and to provide relevant evidence to their claims if necessary. Whether
this exception applies is decided by the vice-director of studies responsible
for the master programme.
If any requirement of the course has been fulfilled by
fraudulent means, be it for example by cheating at an exam, plagiarizing parts
of a written assignment or by faking signatures on an attendance sheet, the
student's participation in the course will be discontinued, the entire course
will be graded as "not assessed" and will be entered into the
electronic exam record as "fraudulently obtained". Self-plagiarism,
particularly re-using own work handed in for other courses, will be treated
likewise.
Optional literature
Johns, A. (2006). Intellectual Property and the Nature of Science. Cultural Studies, 20(2-3), 145-164.
Friesike, S., & Schildhauer, T. (2015). Open science: many good
resolutions, very few incentives, yet. In I. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S.
Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives
and Performance (pp. 277-289). Springer International Publishing.
Open
Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological
science. Science, 349(6251),
aac4716.
Worlock,
K. (2004). The pros and cons of Open Access. Nature. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/34.html
No comments:
Post a Comment