September 30, 2015


Course objectives and assignments

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

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.
Besides, the seminar aims at introducing Open Science as a set of practices to students to let them explore options for their own studies and theses.

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 ( Please test your accounts and notify the teaching assistants if you encounter access problems.

 Course Outline
Date | Time


Introductory meeting: course objectives and assignments

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.

Open Cultures and Open Innovation
Chesbrough, H. (2015). From Open Science to Open Innovation. Science Business Publishing. Available at:
Mayer, K. (2015). From Science 2.0 to Open Science: Turning rhetoric into action? STCSN-eLetter, 3(1). Available at:
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:

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).

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:

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.


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.

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.

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.
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
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:

No comments:

Post a Comment