The Impossibility of Open Science without Otherness and Epistemic Plurality

Main Article Content

Marcelo de Souza Bispo


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.


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.


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.
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.
Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2007). The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18(1), 63–77.
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
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
Chauvette, A., Schick-Makaroff, K., & Molzahn, A. E. (2019). Open data in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18.
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.
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.
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.
Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2018, October 24). Do authors comply when funders enforce open access to research? Nature, 562(7728), 483-486.
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
Martins, H. C. (2020). A importância da ciência aberta (open science) na pesquisa em Administração. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(1), 1-2.
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.
Mendes-da-Silva, W. (2018). Promoção de transparência e impacto da pesquisa em negócios. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(4), 639-649.
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.
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.
Paes de Paula, A. P. (2016). Beyond paradigms in Organization Studies: the circle of epistemic matrices. Cadernos EBAPE, 14(1), 24-46.
Peirano, M. G. S. (1999). A alteridade em contexto: A antropologia como ciência social no Brasil. Série Antropologia, 255. Brasília: UnB. Retrieved from
Poth, C. N. (2019). Rigorous and ethical qualitative data reuse: Potential perils and promising practices. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18.
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.
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.
Wingfield, B., & Millar, B. (2019, April 10). How the open access model hurts academics in poorer countries. The Conversation. Retrieved from