Sabina Leonelli
University of Exeter
Open Science policies encourage researchers to disclose a wide range of outputs from their work, thus codifying openness as a specific set of research practices and guidelines that can be interpreted and applied consistently across disciplines and geographical settings. In this paper, we argue that this “one-size-fits-all” view of openness sidesteps key questions about the forms, implications, and goals of openness for research practice. We propose instead to interpret openness as a dynamic and highly situated mode of valuing the research process and its outputs, which encompasses economic as well as scientific, cultural, political, ethical, and social considerations. This interpretation creates a critical space for moving beyond the economic definitions of value embedded in the contemporary biosciences landscape and Open Science policies, and examining the diversity of interests and commitments that affect research practices in the life sciences. To illustrate these claims, we use three case studies that highlight the challenges surrounding decisions about how––and how best––to make things open. These cases, drawn from ethnographic engagement with Open Science debates and semistructured interviews carried out with UK-based biologists and bioinformaticians between 2013 and 2014, show how the enactment of openness reveals judgments about what constitutes a legitimate intellectual contribution, for whom, and with what implications.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1177/0162243916672071
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,323
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Open Science, Philosophy and Peer Review.Michael A. Peters - 2014 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 46 (3):1-5.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Openness and Trust in Data-Intensive Science: The Case of Biocuration.Ane Møller Gabrielsen - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (3):497-504.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Genomic Research Data: Open Vs. Restricted Access.David B. Resnik - 2010 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 32 (1):1.
Striking a Balance: Openness in Research Through Design.A. T. Holroyd - 2015 - Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):36-37.
Striking a Balance: Openness in Research Through Design.A. Twigger Holroyd - 2015 - Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):36-37.
The Dilemma of Openness in Social Robots.Felix Tun Han Lo - 2019 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 23 (3):342-365.
Classificatory Theory in Data-Intensive Science: The Case of Open Biomedical Ontologies.Sabina Leonelli - 2012 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26 (1):47 - 65.
The Methodological Limitations of Popper's Research Program on "Open Society".Alireza Ismailzad - 2009 - Journal of Philosophical Investigations at University of Tabriz 3 (214):1-28.
Openness and Trust in Data-Intensive Science: The Case of Biocuration.Ane Møller Gabrielsen - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (3):497-504.


Added to PP index

Total views
4 ( #1,245,002 of 2,448,708 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #301,447 of 2,448,708 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes