@article{33368,
  abstract     = {{<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>The Open Science movement is gaining tremendous popularity and tries to initiate changes in science, for example the sharing and reuse of data. The new requirements that come with Open Science poses researchers with several challenges. While most of these challenges have already been addressed in several studies, little attention has been paid so far to the underlying Open Science practices (OSP). An exploratory study was conducted focusing on the OSP relating to sharing and using data. 13 researchers from the Weizenbaum Institute were interviewed. The Weizenbaum Institute is an interdisciplinary research institute in Germany that was founded in 2017. To reconstruct OSP a grounded theory methodology (Strauss in Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987) was used and classified OSP into open production, open distribution and open consumption (Smith in Openness as social praxis. First Monday, 2017). The research shows that apart from the disciplinary background and research environment, the methodological approach and the type of research data play a major role in the context of OSP. The interviewees’ self-attributions related to the types of data they work with: qualitative, quantitative, social media and source code. With regard to the methodological approach and type of data, it was uncovered that uncertainties and missing knowledge, data protection, competitive disadvantages, vulnerability and costs are the main reasons for the lack of openness. The analyses further revealed that knowledge and established data infrastructures as well as competitive advantages act as drivers for openness. Because of the link between research data and OSP, the authors of this paper argue that in order to promote OSP, the methodological approach and the type of research data must also be considered.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel and Bauer, Mareike and Wünsche, Hannes and Schimmler, Sonja}},
  issn         = {{0033-5177}},
  journal      = {{Quality & Quantity}},
  keywords     = {{Open Science}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{3621--3636}},
  publisher    = {{Springer Science and Business Media LLC}},
  title        = {{{The connection of open science practices and the methodological approach of researchers}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s11135-022-01524-4}},
  volume       = {{57}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}

@article{45604,
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel and Mauermeister, Sylvi and Schmidt, Rebecca}},
  issn         = {{0023-8333}},
  journal      = {{Language Learning}},
  keywords     = {{Open Science, Open Science Practices, Cultural Change}},
  publisher    = {{Wiley}},
  title        = {{{Open Research Practices and Cultural Change: A Commentary on “(Why) Are Open Research Practices the Future for the Study of Language Learning?”}}},
  doi          = {{10.1111/lang.12583}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}

@article{43094,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p />}},
  author       = {{Heck, Tamara and Steinhardt, Isabel and Rahal, Rima-Maria and Schubotz, Moritz and Scholl, Dominik and Behrens, Sarah}},
  issn         = {{2367-7163}},
  journal      = {{Research Ideas and Outcomes}},
  keywords     = {{Open Science}},
  publisher    = {{Pensoft Publishers}},
  title        = {{{Bootstrapping the Open Science culture: The fellowship approach}}},
  doi          = {{10.3897/rio.9.e103675}},
  volume       = {{9}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}

@article{34132,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>How can Knowledge In/Equity be addressed in qualitative research by taking the idea of Open Science into account? Two projects from the Open Science Fellows Programme by Wikimedia Deutschland will be used to illustrate how Open Science practices can succeed in qualitative research, thereby reducing In/Equity. In this context, In/Equity is considered as a fair and equal representation of people, their knowledge and insights and comprehends questions about how epistemic, structural, institutional and personal biases generate and shape knowledge as guidance. Three questions guide this approach: firstly, what do we understand by In/Equity in the context of knowledge production in these projects? Secondly, who will be involved in knowledge generation and to what extent will they be valued or unvalued? Thirdly, how can data be made accessible for re-use to enable true participation and sharing?</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel and Kruschick, Felicitas}},
  issn         = {{2367-7163}},
  journal      = {{Research Ideas and Outcomes}},
  keywords     = {{Open Science, Knowledge Equity, Qualitative Methods}},
  publisher    = {{Pensoft Publishers}},
  title        = {{{Knowledge Equity and Open Science in qualitative research – Practical research considerations}}},
  doi          = {{10.3897/rio.8.e86387}},
  volume       = {{8}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{33371,
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel}},
  issn         = {{2365-3329}},
  journal      = {{DNGPS Working Paper}},
  keywords     = {{Open Science, kollaborative Autoethnographie}},
  number       = {{si}},
  pages        = {{1--11}},
  publisher    = {{Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH}},
  title        = {{{Kollaborative Autoethnographien digitaler Praktiken. Eine konzeptionelle, methodische und theoretische Einführung zu einem Lehr-Forschungsprojekt im ersten Corona-Semester}}},
  doi          = {{10.3224/dngps.v8si.01}},
  volume       = {{8}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{33370,
  abstract     = {{<ns3:p>Research that investigates respective researchers’ engagement in Open Science varies widely in the topics addressed, methods employed, and disciplines investigated, which makes it difficult to integrate and compare its results. To investigate current outcomes of Open Science research, and to get a better understanding on well-researched topics and research gaps, we aimed at providing an openly accessible overview of empirical studies that focus on different aspects of Open Science in different scientific disciplines, academic groups and geographical regions. In this paper, we describe a data set of studies about Open Science practices retrieved following a PRISMA approach to compile a literature review. We included studies from the Scopus and Web of Science databases with keywords relating to Open Science between the years 2000 and 2020, as well as a snowball search for relevant articles. Studies that did not investigate any aspect of Open Science, or weren’t peer-reviewed were excluded, resulting in a total of 695 remaining studies.<ns3:italic> </ns3:italic>The data set was collaboratively annotated to ensure intercoder reliability of the coded data.</ns3:p>}},
  author       = {{Lasser, Jana and Schneider, Jürgen and Lösch, Thomas and Röwert, Ronny and Heck, Tamara and Bluemel, Clemens and Neufend, Maike and Steinhardt, Isabel and Skupien, Stefan}},
  issn         = {{2046-1402}},
  journal      = {{F1000Research}},
  keywords     = {{Open Science}},
  publisher    = {{F1000 Research Ltd}},
  title        = {{{MapOSR - A mapping review dataset of empirical studies on Open Science}}},
  doi          = {{10.12688/f1000research.121665.1}},
  volume       = {{11}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{36524,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>How can Knowledge In/Equity be addressed in qualitative research by taking the idea of Open Science into account? Two projects from the Open Science Fellows Programme by Wikimedia Deutschland will be used to illustrate how Open Science practices can succeed in qualitative research, thereby reducing In/Equity. In this context, In/Equity is considered as a fair and equal representation of people, their knowledge and insights and comprehends questions about how epistemic, structural, institutional and personal biases generate and shape knowledge as guidance. Three questions guide this approach: firstly, what do we understand by In/Equity in the context of knowledge production in these projects? Secondly, who will be involved in knowledge generation and to what extent will they be valued or unvalued? Thirdly, how can data be made accessible for re-use to enable true participation and sharing?</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel and Kruschick, Felicitas}},
  issn         = {{2367-7163}},
  journal      = {{Research Ideas and Outcomes}},
  keywords     = {{Open Science, Knowledge Equity, Qualitative Methods}},
  pages        = {{e86387}},
  publisher    = {{Pensoft Publishers}},
  title        = {{{Knowledge Equity and Open Science in qualitative research – Practical research considerations}}},
  doi          = {{10.3897/rio.8.e86387}},
  volume       = {{8}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{29246,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>Openness in science and education is increasing in importance within the digital knowledge society. So far, less attention has been paid to teaching Open Science in bachelor’s degrees or in qualitative methods. Therefore, the aim of this article is to use a seminar example to explore what Open Science practices can be taught in qualitative research and how digital tools can be involved. The seminar focused on the following practices: Open data practices, the practice of using the free and open source tool “Collaborative online Interpretation, the practice of participating, cooperating, collaborating and contributing through participatory technologies and in social (based) networks. To learn Open Science practices, the students were involved in a qualitative research project about “Use of digital technologies for the study and habitus of students”. The study shows the practices of Open Data are easy to teach, whereas the use of free and open source tools and participatory technologies for collaboration, participation, cooperation and contribution is more difficult. In addition, a cultural shift would have to take place within German universities to promote Open Science practices in general.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel}},
  issn         = {{0167-8329}},
  journal      = {{Education for Information}},
  keywords     = {{Open Science, Open Education Practices, Library and Information Sciences, Education, Information Systems}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{263--279}},
  publisher    = {{IOS Press}},
  title        = {{{Learning Open Science by doing Open Science. A reflection of a qualitative research project-based seminar}}},
  doi          = {{10.3233/efi-190308}},
  volume       = {{36}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}

@article{29247,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>Ausgehend von den fünf Schulen von Open Science von Fecher und Friesicke (2014) findet in diesem Beitrag eine Reflexion eines qualitativen Open Science-Forschungsprojektes statt. Mit der Reflexion wird der Offenlegung und Transparenz, die Open Science-Projekten immanent ist, entsprochen. Es soll aber auch zukünftigen Forscherinnen und Forschern, die überlegen ein Open Science Projekt zu starten, dabei helfen mögliche Hürden aber auch Lösungswege zu antizipieren. Als Reflexionsbeispiel dient das Projekt «Nutzung digitaler Medien und Habitus von Studierenden», das auf folgenden fünf Ebenen betrachtet wird: Ebene der Wissensproduktion; Ebene der freien Zugänglichkeit von Wissen; Ebene der Infrastruktur; Ebene der kollaborativen Forschung und Ebene der Impakt-Messung.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel}},
  issn         = {{1424-3636}},
  journal      = {{MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung}},
  keywords     = {{Mediendidaktik, Hochschule, Open Science}},
  pages        = {{122--138}},
  publisher    = {{Sektion Medienpadagogik der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Erziehungswissenschaft - DGfE}},
  title        = {{{Open Science-Forschung und qualitative Methoden – fünf Ebenen der Reflexion}}},
  doi          = {{10.21240/mpaed/32/2018.10.28.X}},
  volume       = {{32}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}