Political Science and Open Science

The Institute of Political Science has officially begun its foray into Open Science, developing its first ‘Research Data Management (RDM) Policy’ which aims to increase the openness of research data and practices within the institute.  Being the last institute of the FSW to create such a policy, some within the university have questioned whether this community is resistant towards RDM, and if so, from where such resistance stems. In October I sat down with a group of Political Science researchers during a lunch seminar1, entitled ‘RDM and Open Science, at the FSW and Beyond’, to discuss just this.

The findings

During the seminar, an overwhelming majority of participants expressed concern regarding the perceived administration burden that Open Science and RDM entails. Given the newness of this field, researchers are not yet well-versed in RDM practices and feel that Leiden does not currently support them with the necessary infrastructure and training during this transition. The work-intensive costs thus outweigh the benefits, with recognition and reward not providing enough incentive at present.

In this vein, the desired ‘end goal’ of such measures was discussed, both at the Leiden- and institute-level. Is the aim to quell academic fraud fears by increasing transparency? The resounding opinion was ‘no’: If a researcher sets out to commit fraud, they will surely find a way regardless of the measures put in place. The autonomy of the researcher to decide what should be made open was stressed on this topic. Top-down regulations take a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that is too centred on surveillance, and impose regulations that could potentially hinder research. Here, one researcher questioned whether this would create pressure to change the nature of their work; that projects with data and methodologies ‘easier’ to document would be proposed going forward with the sole aim to alleviate stress.

Is the goal to make more data available for reuse? Here qualitative scholars discussed the nature of their data, and the utility of making it available for reuse. Open Science originated from the natural sciences, and much of the related guidelines and frameworks are best-applicable to quantitative data, which does not always reflect the kind of data generated in other disciplines.

Although these sentiments were echoed in the seminar discussion, there was a cautious optimism towards the possibilities that Open Science holds for qualitative data. Studies involving interpretivist elements often face scrutiny due to their deviation from traditional positivist methodologies, and so providing more information about the research process could aid in asserting the validity of such research. Similarly, scholars acknowledged the space limitations of bibliographies and welcomed the opportunity to elaborate on data sources and processes in publication packages.

From this, the conclusion was reached that encouraging data openness was the most favoured outcome for the institute’s path to Open Science. This arose from a scientific camaraderie that recognised the way forward for (social) science is to share openly so as to benefit from each other’s work, and likewise the personal benefits that come from others reusing and citing their work.

Thus, although much still needs to be done in terms of openness penetrating academic culture at Leiden, there remains an enthusiasm from the institute to reflect on the benefits of Open Science and RDM.