The Dialectics of Open Science: Three Years since the UNESCO Recommendation

“Open science” and the Mertonian ideal

The mid-twentieth-century sociologist Robert Merton, who can be said to have set out what is now termed “open science” through his norms for ideal science practices and communication, prescribed that science should be universal in what it reveals (objectivity) and constructs (free access). Via this Mertonian norm of universalism, the science community is encouraged to pursue universal knowledge by openly discussing and verifying facts discovered collectively, regardless of individual scientists’ identities, regional differences, and socio-political conditions. The practical norms of open science that have been imagined, contested, and observed in the world science community for decades since Merton’s conceptual inception of it, seem to diverge considerably from his prescriptive norms.

Researchers have experienced ever-intensifying commercialization and peer competition in the science community over recent decades. This trend eventually motivated individual researchers to keep their ideas and findings within closed circles instead of sharing them with their peers in the wider community. Meanwhile and in contrast, advances in digital technologies and Internet access have enabled scientific publications and research materials to be publicly released and become accessible to relevant stakeholders in a more timely and efficient manner. Thus encircled by a double movement, as suggested by Karl Polanyi, individual scientists and local, national, and regional science communities have been witnessing heterogeneous sets of practical open science norms. While the ideal of open science that Merton initiated remains intact, the reality of open science is not only historically but necessarily a multivocal, dialectic process of contestation and construction loaded with divergent ideas and practices.

Responding to these multi-layered dialectics of open science, UNESCO mobilized its convening power, initiated global dialogues among its 193 members, and finally issued the Recommendation on Open Science in 2021. The Recommendation rightly supports universalism and local/regional diversities as a much-needed effort. On the one hand, it reaffirms global recognition of open science and its universal values which have enabled science. It calls for collective global endeavors to revitalize open science within and beyond scientific communities. On the other hand, UNESCO’s Recommendation sheds light on the inevitable diversities when implementing open science and advocates multicultural and multilingual knowledge systems. It is one thing for the global community to maintain a commitment to Mertonian universalism. It is another to acknowledge and champion the importance of diversity and the value of localities worldwide when it comes to advancing universalism.

Developments in South Korea

Three years have passed since the adoption of the UNESCO Recommendation. Over this period, we can identify the following actions aimed at elaborating on the specificities of open science in South Korea (officially the Republic of Korea). Unlike countries that have established an integrated national open science policy or plan, South Korea currently does not have a comprehensive framework covering all aspects of open science practices. Nonetheless, at least four distinctive movements have occurred in the last ten years, along with the global open science agenda-setting process.

First, government funding agencies have promoted public policy measures to enhance access to and utilization of publicly funded research outputs. This is based on the simple logic that the public should benefit from public investment. In particular, the outbreak of COVID-19 accelerated the public sector’s proactive efforts to share research data to combat public health emergencies and safeguard public goods. Even though unconditional COVID-19 data sharing is no longer in practice, public access policies applied to publicly funded research outputs remain in effect.

Second, research data management and sharing have been facilitated by the growth of data-driven research or AI (artificial intelligence)-assisted research. Private companies, the Korean government, and public agencies have invested in data and resources for AI technologies. Generic data platforms that provide services for all scientific disciplines have appeared in both the public and private sectors. In addition, field-specific data centers (in bioresearch, materials science, ecology, geoscience, high-energy physics, public health research, etc.) and institutional repositories have increased in number and developed discipline-specific or institution-centered rules and standards.

Third, academic institutions and libraries have continuously adapted to the evolving global landscape of open-access publishing. As more researchers across the world as well as in South Korea publish their papers via international open-access journals, greater pressure is being placed on domestic libraries to adapt. They are being asked to reconsider existing models of international journal subscription and explore alternative ways (e.g., transformative agreements) to balance current subscription costs with open-access publishing fees. “Predatory” journals and conferences – dominated unequivocally by commercial interests – have become another challenge to advancing open-access publishing. The academic publishing industry is undeniably undergoing transitions, prompting academic communities to readjust. Yet, available information and potential risks associated with these transitions vary across academic disciplines, sectors, and regions, engendering divergent publishing behaviors.

Fourth, citizen scientists, local communities, and laypeople have become integral participants in the scientific process. Their engagement and contribution are particularly prominent in ecology, astronomy, and public health research. New perspectives and interests introduced by emerging science actors lead to novel trajectories of knowledge development. At the same time, these trajectories inevitably result in tensions amid heterogeneities. A tendency to preserve endogenous knowledge embedded in local contexts is being challenged by calls to codify and disseminate this knowledge out of local contexts to broader audiences. Similarly, the established norm to protect the unique identities of those surveyed is being countered by demands for exceptions to be made for research purposes.

The dialectics of open science

For anything to be real and existent, the phenomenological wisdom in the sociology of knowledge advises that it should have an ideal representation and be constructed in dialectics of concrete types and heterogeneities that are often disconnected. In the same spirit, this article briefly considers several distinct developments in the Korean dialectics of open science. As they stand, each is a disconnected movement confined within specific contexts. Only historical observers will be able to see what they become over the coming years. Depending on the path they follow, the prototypical ideal of open science by Robert Merton will become concretized and real. Along the whole route, we can be assured that open science is coming to us in all these details. We only encourage people to pay closer attention to current and future developments in countries like South Korea. UNESCO’s upcoming national reporting processes, scheduled for 2025, will be a valuable platform to deliver lively dialectics of open science from each country. On top of that, it will take in-depth social science studies of those dialectics to fully appreciate the emerging global dialectics of open science and reveal the specific tasks we are facing.

Eunjung Shin, Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI), South Korea <ejshin@stepi.re.kr>
Jae-Mahn Shim, Korea University, South Korea