Theoretical framework for open team science / オープンチームサイエンスという考え方

By Yasuhisa Kondo

A Japanese version of this post is available

author yasuhisa kondo
Yasuhisa Kondo (biography)

What is open team science? What challenges does it deal with and how?

What is open team science?

In our experience, projects are commonly disrupted by socio-psychological boundaries, particularly at the initial phase of team building. Such boundaries are often generated by asymmetric information, knowledge, wisdom (wise use of knowledge; Bellingen et al., 2004), values, socio-economic status, and power among actors.

We have developed a theoretical framework that considers open science as an open scientific knowledge production system, which can be interlinked with transdisciplinarity as a driver of boundary spanning to develop a new research paradigm. We call this open team science.

The open team science theoretical framework

Our theoretical framework spans inter-actor boundaries by:

  1. developing the goals that actors with different interests can tackle together (transcend method)
  2. considering ethical equity with special attention paid to empowering marginalized actors
  3. developing data visualization based on the FAIR Data Principles
  4. facilitating dialogue.

The framework is summarised in the two figures below.

kondo_theoretical framework_principles citizen science
The theoretical framework of open team science interlinking principles from citizen science and community-based participatory research. Source: Kondo et al (2019).

 


 

kondo_theoretical framework_key concepts
Key concepts and approaches for boundary spanning in the open team science framework. Source: Kondo et al (2019).

Finally, we describe three key concepts for boundary spanning in our framework: “transcend,” “ethical equity” and FAIR data principles.

Transcend

Transcend involves discovering and sharing the goals that actors with different interests can tackle together. The ‘transcend’ method was introduced by Johan Galtung (Transcend International 2019) and is fundamentally based on transforming conflict by peaceful means, including dialogue, negotiation, and mediation. The transcend method involves constructing new realities among the range of parties.

Where conflict exists, a mediator is required to facilitate dialogue among the parties. Once a dialogue emerges and develops, the parties in conflict can deepen their understanding of each other’s perspectives and communicate in such a way that a divergence of perceptions can take place.

In open science, where researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and civil society members aim to share data, code, and protocols, and to collaborate with each other to produce scientific knowledge applicable to real world problems, the transcend method can provide openness and a virtuous cycle toward constructing a continuous dialogue among all parties.

Ethical equity

Ethical equity requires special attention to empowering marginalized (or ‘small voice’) actors. It involves considering procedural or distributive justice for a variety of individuals with different goals and ideas, including marginalized people. For example, knowledge and information are regarded as resources that should be fairly evaluated and distributed. Attention must be paid to the process itself before directly aiming for agreement, especially ensuring that the voices of marginalized people are not masked. Organizers and/or facilitators should spare no effort to understand marginalized people involved in their decision process.

FAIR data principles

FAIR stands for: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. These principles place importance on the ability of data to be found and used automatically by machines, as well as re-used by humans.

Next steps

Evaluating the effect of boundary spanning in open team science is an important next task. Useful assessment methods include participatory observation, semi-structured interviews, and periodic questionnaires. These can examine project outcomes, processes and the perceptual transformation of participants.

What do you think? Do this framework and the key concepts resonate with your experience? Are there other issues that you think should be considered?

To find out more:
Kondo, Y., Miyata, A., Ikeuchi, U., Nakahara, S., Nakashima, K., Ōnishi, H., Osawa, T., Ota, K., Sato, K., Ushijima, K., Vienni Baptista, B., Kumazawa, T., Hayashi, K., Murayama, Y., Okuda, N., and Nakanishi H. (2019). Interlinking open science and community-based participatory research for socio-environmental issues. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39: 54-61. (Online) (DOI – Open Access): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.07.001

References:
Bellingen, G., Durval, C. and Mills. A. (2004). Data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. The Way of Systems website. (Online): http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm

Transcend International: A Peace Development Environment Network website. (2019). (Online): https://www.transcend.org

Biography: Yasuhisa Kondo PhD is an associate professor at the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN), Kyoto, Japan. He is interested in the promotion of open science to address socio-environmental issues, and is coordinating a meta-research project titled “Information Asymmetry Reduction in Open Team Science for Socio-environmental Cases” at the RIHN (https://openteamscience.jp/en/).


オープンチームサイエンスという考え方 / Theoretical framework for open team science

An English version of this post is available

オープンチームサイエンスという考え方

オープンチームサイエンスはどのような課題を扱い、それをどう解決しようとしているのか

オープンチームサイエンスとは

環境問題は、自然環境と人間社会の要因が複合して生じます。問題に対処するための共同研究プロジェクトを立ち上げる際には、関係する主体の間の社会心理的なへだたりが妨げとなることがあります。そのようなへだたりは、情報、知識、知恵(ここでは知識の賢明な使い方を意味します)、価値観、社会経済的地位、権力などが非対称であることによって生じます。

私たちの研究グループは、オープンサイエンスを科学的知識生産システムの開放と位置づけ、へだたりを超えてつながることを本質とする超学際性(トランスディシプリナリティー)と結びつけて、新しい研究理論を構築しようとしています。それが「オープンチームサイエンス」です。

オープンチームサイエンスの原則

主体間のへだたりを越えてつながるためには、
(1)関心事の異なる主体が一緒に取り組める目標を設定すること(とりつくしま)
(2)倫理的衡平性、特に疎外されている主体のエンパワーメントに配慮すること
(3)FAIRデータ原則に基づいてデータと情報を見える化すること
(4)主体間の対話をうながすこと が重要です(図1・2)。

kondo_theoretical framework_principles citizen science
オープンチームサイエンスの基本的考え方。市民参加科学(シチズンサイエンス)と地域密着型研究を理論的に結びつけます。

 


 

kondo_theoretical framework_key concepts
オープンチームサイエンスにおいて、へだたりを超えてつながるための重要概念とアプローチ

以下、オープンチームサイエンスにおいてへだたりを超えてつながるための重要概念である「とりつくしま」と「倫理的衡平性」、およびFAIRデータ原則について解説します。

とりつくしま

「とりつくしま」とは、ここでは関心事の異なる主体が一緒に取り組める目標を見つけて共有することを指します。元々は英語でTranscendといって、平和学者のヨハン・ガルトゥング(Johan Galtung)が、対話や交渉・調停といった平和な手段・方法によって対立や紛争を解決に導くための方法として提唱した概念です。「とりつくしま」を見つけることは、異なる主体が新しい現実を共創することを意味します。

対立が生じているところでは、仲介役が当事者間で対話をうながす必要があります。対話が生まれ、進むと、対立関係にある当事者はお互いの考えに対する理解を深めるとともに、認識の違いを明らかにしながら意思疎通を行うことができるようになります。

研究者と実務者、政策立案者、市民がデータや規約、行動原理を共有し、協働を通して現実世界の問題に対処しうる科学的知識を生産する営みとして、オープンサイエンスを適用する際には、「とりつくしま」を見出すことで、あらゆる当事者にひらかれた形で対話を継続していくための好循環を生み出すことができます。

倫理的衡平性

倫理的衡平性を担保するには、とくに疎外されている(言い換えれば「声の小さい」)主体に対するエンパワーメント(権限委譲)が必要です。それは、疎外されている主体も含めて、異なる目的や考えをもった多様な個々人に対して、手続き的公正や分配の公正を考慮することも意味します。ここでは、知識や情報は公平に評価され分配されるべき資源と見なされます。倫理的衡平性の担保は、直接的に合意を目指すのに先立つプロセスにおいて、疎外されている人々が安心して発言できるよう保証する際に、特に留意するべきポイントです。

FAIRデータの原則

FAIRとは、発見できる(Findable)、アクセスできる(Accessible)、相互運用できる(Interoperable)、再利用できる(Reusable)ことをうたう、研究データの新原則です。この原則は、人間が研究データを再利用するだけでなく、機械が自動的にデータを見つけて利用することも想定に入れています。

今後の課題

オープンチームサイエンスによりへだたりを超えてつながったことの効果をどう評価するかということが重要な課題です。参与観察や半構造化インタビュー、定点観測アンケートなどが評価に使えそうです。これらの方法によりプロジェクトの効果とプロセス、参加者の認識の変化について検証することができそうです。

いかがでしょう?あなたの経験に、この理論は当てはまりそうですか?ほかに考慮すべき課題はありますか?

※この記事は、以下の論文を要約して解説したものです。
近藤康久・宮田晃碩・池内有為・中原聖乃・中島健一郎・大西秀之・大澤剛士・太田和彦・佐藤賢一・牛島 健・Bianca Vienni Baptista・熊澤輝一・林 和弘・村山泰啓・奥田 昇・中西久枝, 2019. Interlinking open science and community-based participatory research for socio-environmental issues. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39: 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.07.001 (オープンアクセス)

What motivates researchers to become transdisciplinary and what are the implications for career development?

By Maria Helena Guimarães, Olivia Bina and Christian Pohl

Author - Maria Helena Guimarães
Maria Helena Guimarães (biography)

If disciplines shape scientific research by forming the primary institutional and cognitive units in academia, how do researchers start being interested in and working with a transdisciplinary approach? How does this influence their career development? Continue reading

Using discomfort to prompt learning in collaborative teams

By Rebecca Freeth and Guido Caniglia

Image of Rebecca Freeth
Rebecca Freeth (biography)

We know that reflecting can make a marked difference to the quality of our collective endeavour. However, in the daily busyness of inter- and trans- disciplinary research collaborations, time for reflection slides away from us as more immediate tasks jostle for attention. What would help us put into regular practice what we know in theory about prioritising time to reflect and learn?

Image of Guido Caniglia
Guido Caniglia (biography)

Discomfort sometimes provides the necessary nudge in the ribs that reminds us to keep reflecting and learning. The discomfort of listening to the presentation of a colleague you like and respect, but having very little idea what they’re talking about. Or, worse, failing to see how their research will make a worthy contribution to the collective project. The discomfort when an intellectual debate with a colleague turns personal. The discomfort of watching project milestones loom, knowing you’re seriously behind schedule because others haven’t done what they said. Continue reading

Learning from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research ‘failures’

By Dena Fam and Michael O’Rourke

Dena Fam
Dena Fam (biography)

What makes interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research challenging? What can go wrong and lead to failure? What has your experience been?

Modes of research that involve the integration of different perspectives, such as interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, are notoriously challenging for a host of reasons. Interdisciplinary research requires the combination of insights from different academic disciplines and it is common that these:

  • bear the stamp of different epistemologies; and,
  • involve different types of data collected using different methods in the service of different explanations.

Continue reading

Funding transformative research: 10 key stages

Community member post by Flurina Schneider

Flurina Schneider (biography)

How can funding programmes maximize the potential of transformative research that seeks to make a real difference? How can funders support a more hands-on approach to societal challenges such as ecological crises? A group of Swiss transdisciplinary researchers and funding-agency staff identified 10 overlapping stages and their key ingredients. The stages are also described in the figure below. Continue reading

Improving transdisciplinary arts-science partnerships

Community member post by Tania Leimbach and Keith Armstrong

Tania Leimbach (biography)

Collaborations with scientists have become a major focal point for artists, with many scientists now appreciating the value of building working relationships with artists and projects often going far beyond illustration of scientific concepts to instead forge new collaborative frontiers. What is needed to better “enable” and “situate” arts–science partnerships and support mutual learning?

Our research looked at the facilitation of arts–science partnerships through the investigation of two unique collaborative projects, developed at two geographically distinct sites, initiated by artist Keith Armstrong. One was enacted with an independent arts organisation in regional Australia and the other at a university art gallery in Sydney, Australia. Continue reading