Exploring the Feasibility of Open Research

Opening: Now that open access educational resources exist, it appears that open access research has a large degree of feasibility. This of course may not include some disciplines; as they require certification, to minimize public safety issues, but much could be done with others, given that the scientific method is followed. A community of researchers that adhere to the method could be a force for the common good. Pros: Increased Complexity and Distributed Intelligence: The increase in number of researchers would of course carry more workload. It would also likely increase the scope of inquiry; due to the decentralization. Decentrlized Research: An expectation of liberation with respect to what could be inquired about should not be lost on anyone. There would be no specific focus in the community; and likely no prohibition of questioning specific dogmas. This is a common outcome with decentralized models. Casting a Net for the Academically Talented: Many people suffer economic challenges; and are disadvantaged in as many ways. They of course have not had opportunities; such as going to a good primary school and being able to afford higher education. Now that there are so many free resources for higher education, those who have slipped through the cracks could have new opportunities. It could be a pool for academia to scout unknown talent.

Cons: Dynamics of Accountability: Most of the accountability would probably come from criticism within the community itself. Community standards revolving around the scientific method appears to be critical. It doesn’t seem to be a defeater; however being a liberated space, it would attract some who oppose it, who would wish to change it internally. This is an issue that gets far too little acknowledgement.

Dynamics of Peer Review:

Again the community standards are critical. The community would be Participatory Democratic; in that the community of researchers themselves would be the form of governance. This of course means that the community members be educated in the scientific method and willing to apply it to criticism of other’s research. This doesn’t appear to be a defeater either; however, again the community, being liberated, would be a target for unscientific projects.

Probable Issues with Experimentation:

Experiments not only need to be conducted with careful methods, they also need to be held to ethical and legal standards. No matter how thoughtful and careful the majority of community members could be, an expectation of at least a small number of sub standard experiments is of course reasonable. This may not be a defeater; as a vigilant community has the potential to minimize it, but concerns of destructive outliers are a real risk. This however is not a distinction from current conditions.

Conflict of Interest:

This is of course concerning funding. Not all researchers should be expected to be independent; though I guess they could be. Funding could of course influence the research; but this too is not distinguished from current conditions.

Meritocracy:

The community would require a level of personal and project transparency; concerning relevant aspects. Background and education are of course some of it; but not necessarily a basis for merit. Given that MOOCs exist, and are provided by some of the best universities in the world, higher education has become more accessible than ever. It’s of course the argument that merit revolves around anyway. There is still plenty of academic journals to site; and almost all research is likely to be derivative just the same. There is also a great wealth of empirical data to be applied. As long as a scientific standard exists in the community, there could be a lot of good work resulting from it.

What would be the final judge of all of the open researchers would be predictive value. When predictions are made, and outcomes are similar, there would likely be some increased confidence in the merit of those who made the prediction. This is the essence of how science works. The community members would not only be competing with predictive value, but also aiding in the general predictive value of the community.

Transparency:

This could be included in the “pros” as it could be a community standard. It appears to be important; as it is a small part of assessing merit. Background, and education (including MOOCs) give some idea of where a researcher learned their skills; but also where funding is coming from could be important as well. Project standards for experimentation could be helpful as well; even though the methods should be included in the work. Being responsible includes providing the necessary grains of salt to those we present our work to. It’s just part of being ingenuous; and holding oneself to the standards.

This particular principle has the potential to produce more favorable effects than the current conditions. By being transparent, projects take responsibility and hold themselves accountable to the community. This is not an adopted entirely in the current state of academia; as systemically associated with governance and all that entails, from funding to government contracts in research. There is also the association with commerce; such as publishing, which is not open access, thus carries the exclusive nature of pay to play.

Proactive Criticism:

Science itself requires a great deal of community criticism. It just would not work without critical thought and critique. It’s the purpose of not only peer review, but also methods for experimentation and modeling. It would be required for an open community; and the members would be doing each other and themselves a favor by participating. It’s necessary for the quality of work in general; and it’s likely that such a community would appreciate that.

Closing:

Open Access research does appear to be feasible; for the most part. Some disciplines however would not necessarily be candidates for it; due to legal restrictions. Of course, credentialed and licensed professionals could participate as well. It need not be only amateurs.

With the scientific method and predictive value as community values, such a community could function as per expectation; and would likely have a few advantages over the current state of academia. Though it has a few pitfalls as well; so do all other institutions.

Decentralized models are becoming more common; and demonstrating their value to society. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why this movement cannot include research projects.