Epistemological and social beliefs are associated with support for different open science practices across the social sciences
A large-scale survey of U.S. social science researchers reveals that support for specific open science practices is driven by distinct epistemological and social beliefs rather than a single unified orientation toward openness.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Science is often imagined as a single, unified pursuit, a grand march toward truth where every researcher agrees on the rules of the road. In reality, the landscape of modern research is far more varied, filled with different communities that value different things. One of the most significant shifts in recent decades has been the rise of "open science," a movement encouraging researchers to share their data, publish their work for free, and test each other's findings to ensure they hold up. While this movement is widely praised, it is not a single practice but a collection of different tools. Some researchers want to share data to make sure their results are correct; others want to share them to make knowledge available to everyone, regardless of their background. The question driving this new research is simple yet profound: do the people who do the science believe in these tools for the same reasons, or do their personal views about what science is and who it serves shape which tools they prefer?
A team of researchers based at universities in the United States set out to answer this by listening to the scientists themselves. They surveyed more than 1,300 researchers across eight different fields, including economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Instead of asking simply whether someone supports open science, they asked specific questions about four distinct practices: sharing raw data, registering a study plan before starting it, publishing articles without a paywall, and repeating other people's experiments to see if the results match. The researchers also asked the participants about their deeper beliefs. They measured how much a scientist believed that knowledge is objective and built on hard facts, and how much they felt that the scientific community was closed off or unwelcoming to certain groups of people.
The study revealed that these personal beliefs act like a filter, shaping which open science tools a researcher finds most appealing. The researchers found that those who held strong views that science is about uncovering objective, universal truths were most eager to share their data, register their study plans in advance, and repeat experiments. For these scientists, openness was a way to prove that their work was rigorous and reliable. However, this same group was less enthusiastic about making their published articles free for everyone to read. In contrast, researchers who felt that the scientific community was exclusionary—believing it was dominated by specific groups and unwelcoming to others—showed a different pattern. They were particularly strong supporters of making articles free to read and sharing data, seeing these actions as ways to break down barriers and make science more inclusive.
These differences were not just a matter of which field a scientist worked in or whether they used numbers or words in their research. Even when the researchers accounted for the specific discipline and the methods used, the personal beliefs about knowledge and community still explained why scientists supported different practices. For instance, a sociologist who believed strongly in objective truth might support data sharing for the same reasons an economist did, while a sociologist who felt the field was exclusionary might champion open access for entirely different reasons. The study suggests that the open science movement is not a monolith with a single goal. Instead, it is a collection of practices supported by different, sometimes overlapping, values. Some scientists are driven by the desire for precision and verification, while others are driven by the desire for equity and access.
The findings suggest that trying to convince all researchers to adopt open science practices with a single message may not work. A pitch focused on "rigor" and "reproducibility" might resonate deeply with those who view science as an objective search for truth, but it might not move those who are motivated by social justice and inclusion. Conversely, appeals to "access" and "fairness" might inspire the latter group but feel less urgent to the former. The researchers concluded that to build a truly open scientific community, leaders and institutions need to recognize that these different motivations exist side by side. By understanding that a scientist might share their data to prove a point or to open a door, the movement can better connect with the diverse values that drive the people doing the work.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.