The Impossibility of Open Science without Otherness and Epistemic Plurality
Main Article Content
Marcelo de Souza Bispo
Abstract
My objective in this text is to present a counterpoint to the positivist bias that has dominated the debate on open science and eventually highlight some problems and provide a more plural and inclusive perspective on the subject. I reflect on three key points that have pervaded the debate on open science, namely: (a) open access to the knowledge produced, (b) transparency in research processes, and (c) replication and reproducibility of previous research. My focus is on highlighting the need for a plural and inclusive view of science, one which is grounded on otherness assumptions.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Bispo, M. de S. (2021). The Impossibility of Open Science without Otherness and Epistemic Plurality. Journal of Contemporary Administration, 26(2), e210246. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2022210246.en
Section
Editorial
Since mid-February of 2023, the authors retain the copyright relating to their article and grant the journal RAC, from ANPAD, the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0), as stated in the article’s PDF document. This license provides that the article published can be shared (allows you to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapted (allows you to remix, transform, and create from the material for any purpose, even commercial) by anyone.
After article acceptance, the authors must sign a Term of Authorization for Publication, which is sent to the authors by e-mail for electronic signature before publication.
References
Aguinis, H., Cascio, W. F., & Ramani, R. S. (2017). Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(6), 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0081-0
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1291-1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015
Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2007). The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00487.x
Bernardi, S. (2018). A sombra das revistas predatórias no Brasil: Estudo mostra quantos pesquisadores do país publicam em periódicos com práticas suspeitas. Pesquisa FAPESP, (270). Retrieved from https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/a-sombra-das-revistas-predatorias-no-brasil/
Bispo, M. de S. (2020). Pesquisas qualitativas: Para além do método na pesquisa qualitativa em Ciências Sociais. In R. de C. Fazzi & J. A. de Lima (Orgs.), Campos das Ciências Sociais: Figuras do mosaico das pesquisas no Brasil e em Portugal (pp.757-766). Petrópolis, RJ: Editora Vozes.
Buranyi, S. (2017, June 27). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
Chauvette, A., Schick-Makaroff, K., & Molzahn, A. E. (2019). Open data in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918823863
Chawla, D. S. (2021, July 22). 8% of researchers in Dutch survey have falsified or fabricated data: Study of nearly 7,000 scientists also finds that more than half engage in ‘questionable research practices’. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02035-2
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Donaldson, L. (2005). Organization theory as a positive science. In C. Knudsen, H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory (pp. 39-62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, R., & Shulenburger, D. (2013). The high cost of scholarly journals: (And what to do about it). Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(6), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604123
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., Hajjem, C., & Hilf, E. R. (2008). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access: An update. Serials Review, 34(1), 36-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2008.10765150
Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2018, October 24). Do authors comply when funders enforce open access to research? Nature, 562(7728), 483-486. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07101-w
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). Big publishers, bigger profits: How the scholarly community lost the control of its journals. MediaTropes eJournal, 5(2), 102-110. Retrieved from https://mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/view/26422
Martins, H. C. (2020). A importância da ciência aberta (open science) na pesquisa em Administração. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(1), 1-2. http://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020190380
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C. K., Spies, J. R., Thaney, K., Updegrove, A., Woo, K. H., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800
Mendes-da-Silva, W. (2018). Promoção de transparência e impacto da pesquisa em negócios. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(4), 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180210
Mendes-da-Silva, W. (2019). Have we been transparent enough? Challenges in replicability and credibility in business research. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 23(5), 1-6. http://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190306
Mills, C. W. (1975). A imaginação sociológica. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
Nkomo, S. M. (2009). The seductive power of academic journal rankings: Challenges of searching for the otherwise. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 106-112. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.37012184
Paes de Paula, A. P. (2016). Beyond paradigms in Organization Studies: the circle of epistemic matrices. Cadernos EBAPE, 14(1), 24-46. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395131419
Peirano, M. G. S. (1999). A alteridade em contexto: A antropologia como ciência social no Brasil. Série Antropologia, 255. Brasília: UnB. Retrieved from http://dan.unb.br/images/doc/Serie255empdf.pdf
Poth, C. N. (2019). Rigorous and ethical qualitative data reuse: Potential perils and promising practices. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919868870
Ramos, A. G. (1996). A redução sociológica (3 ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Ed. UFRJ.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587
Sousa-Santos, B. (2008). Um discurso sobre ciências. São Paulo: Cortez Editora.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guilford Press.
Tavares-Neto, J. Q., & Kozicki, K. (2008). Do “eu” para o “outro”: A alteridade como pressuposto para uma (re)significação dos direitos humanos. Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR, 47, 65-80. https://doi.org/10.5380/rfdufpr.v47i0.15735
Wingfield, B., & Millar, B. (2019, April 10). How the open access model hurts academics in poorer countries. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/how-the-open-access-model-hurts-academics-in-poorer-countries-113856
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1291-1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015
Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2007). The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00487.x
Bernardi, S. (2018). A sombra das revistas predatórias no Brasil: Estudo mostra quantos pesquisadores do país publicam em periódicos com práticas suspeitas. Pesquisa FAPESP, (270). Retrieved from https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/a-sombra-das-revistas-predatorias-no-brasil/
Bispo, M. de S. (2020). Pesquisas qualitativas: Para além do método na pesquisa qualitativa em Ciências Sociais. In R. de C. Fazzi & J. A. de Lima (Orgs.), Campos das Ciências Sociais: Figuras do mosaico das pesquisas no Brasil e em Portugal (pp.757-766). Petrópolis, RJ: Editora Vozes.
Buranyi, S. (2017, June 27). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
Chauvette, A., Schick-Makaroff, K., & Molzahn, A. E. (2019). Open data in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918823863
Chawla, D. S. (2021, July 22). 8% of researchers in Dutch survey have falsified or fabricated data: Study of nearly 7,000 scientists also finds that more than half engage in ‘questionable research practices’. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02035-2
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Donaldson, L. (2005). Organization theory as a positive science. In C. Knudsen, H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory (pp. 39-62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, R., & Shulenburger, D. (2013). The high cost of scholarly journals: (And what to do about it). Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(6), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604123
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., Hajjem, C., & Hilf, E. R. (2008). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access: An update. Serials Review, 34(1), 36-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2008.10765150
Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2018, October 24). Do authors comply when funders enforce open access to research? Nature, 562(7728), 483-486. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07101-w
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). Big publishers, bigger profits: How the scholarly community lost the control of its journals. MediaTropes eJournal, 5(2), 102-110. Retrieved from https://mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/view/26422
Martins, H. C. (2020). A importância da ciência aberta (open science) na pesquisa em Administração. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(1), 1-2. http://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020190380
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C. K., Spies, J. R., Thaney, K., Updegrove, A., Woo, K. H., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800
Mendes-da-Silva, W. (2018). Promoção de transparência e impacto da pesquisa em negócios. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(4), 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180210
Mendes-da-Silva, W. (2019). Have we been transparent enough? Challenges in replicability and credibility in business research. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 23(5), 1-6. http://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190306
Mills, C. W. (1975). A imaginação sociológica. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
Nkomo, S. M. (2009). The seductive power of academic journal rankings: Challenges of searching for the otherwise. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 106-112. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.37012184
Paes de Paula, A. P. (2016). Beyond paradigms in Organization Studies: the circle of epistemic matrices. Cadernos EBAPE, 14(1), 24-46. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395131419
Peirano, M. G. S. (1999). A alteridade em contexto: A antropologia como ciência social no Brasil. Série Antropologia, 255. Brasília: UnB. Retrieved from http://dan.unb.br/images/doc/Serie255empdf.pdf
Poth, C. N. (2019). Rigorous and ethical qualitative data reuse: Potential perils and promising practices. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919868870
Ramos, A. G. (1996). A redução sociológica (3 ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Ed. UFRJ.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587
Sousa-Santos, B. (2008). Um discurso sobre ciências. São Paulo: Cortez Editora.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guilford Press.
Tavares-Neto, J. Q., & Kozicki, K. (2008). Do “eu” para o “outro”: A alteridade como pressuposto para uma (re)significação dos direitos humanos. Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR, 47, 65-80. https://doi.org/10.5380/rfdufpr.v47i0.15735
Wingfield, B., & Millar, B. (2019, April 10). How the open access model hurts academics in poorer countries. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/how-the-open-access-model-hurts-academics-in-poorer-countries-113856