Search results for: literal and phenomenal transparency

Authors: C.Ardil

Abstract:

Open Science translates the understanding and application of various theories and practices in open science philosophy, systems, paradigms and epistemology. Open Science originates with the premise that universal scientific knowledge is a product of a collective scholarly and social collaboration involving all stakeholders and knowledge belongs to the global society. Scientific outputs generated by public research are a public good that should be available to all at no cost and without barriers or restrictions. Open Science has the potential to increase the quality, impact and benefits of science and to accelerate advancement of knowledge by making it more reliable, more efficient and accurate, better understandable by society and responsive to societal challenges, and has the potential to enable growth and innovation through reuse of scientific results by all stakeholders at all levels of society, and ultimately contribute to growth and competitiveness of global society. Open Science is a global movement to improve accessibility to and reusability of research practices and outputs. In its broadest definition, it encompasses open access to publications, open research data and methods, open source, open educational resources, open evaluation, and citizen science. The implementation of open science provides an excellent opportunity to renegotiate the social roles and responsibilities of publicly funded research and to rethink the science system as a whole. Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods. Open Science represents a novel systematic approach to the scientific process, shifting from the standard practices of publishing research results in scientific publications towards sharing and using all available knowledge at an earlier stage in the research process, based on cooperative work and diffusing scholarly knowledge with no barriers and restrictions. Open Science refers to efforts to make the primary outputs of publicly funded research results (publications and the research data) publicly accessible in digital format with no limitations. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering, sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research is done. Open Science is the ongoing transition in how open research is carried out, disseminated, deployed, and transformed to make scholarly research more open, global, collaborative, creative and closer to society. Open Science involves various movements aiming to remove the barriers for sharing any kind of output, resources, methods or tools, at any stage of the research process. Open Science embraces open access to publications, research data, source software, collaboration, peer review, notebooks, educational resources, monographs, citizen science, or research crowdfunding. The recognition and adoption of open science practices, including open science policies that increase open access to scientific literature and encourage data and code sharing, is increasing in the open science philosophy. Revolutionary open science policies are motivated by ethical, moral or utilitarian arguments, such as the right to access digital research literature for open source research or science data accumulation, research indicators, transparency in the field of academic practice, and reproducibility. Open science philosophy is adopted primarily to demonstrate the benefits of open science practices. Researchers use open science applications for their own advantage in order to get more offers, increase citations, attract media attention, potential collaborators, career opportunities, donations and funding opportunities. In open science philosophy, open data findings are evidence that open science practices provide significant benefits to researchers in scientific research creation, collaboration, communication, and evaluation according to more traditional closed science practices. Open science considers concerns such as the rigor of peer review, common research facts such as financing and career development, and the sacrifice of author rights. Therefore, researchers are recommended to implement open science research within the framework of existing academic evaluation and incentives. As a result, open science research issues are addressed in the areas of publishing, financing, collaboration, resource management and sharing, career development, discussion of open science questions and conclusions.

Keywords: Open Science, Open Science Philosophy, Open Science Research, Open Science Data

Procedia PDF Downloads 107

Authors: Julie M. Novak, Simone K. Brennan, Lacey Brim

Abstract:

Undergraduate medical education (UME) curriculum notably addresses micro-level communications (e.g., patient-provider, intercultural, inter-professional), yet frequently under-examines the role and impact of organizational communication, a more macro-level. Organizational communication, however, functions as foundation and through systemic structures of an organization and thereby serves as hidden curriculum and influences learning experiences and outcomes. Yet, little available research exists fully examining how students experience organizational communication while in medical school. Extant literature and best practices provide insufficient guidance for UME programs, in particular. The purpose of this study was to map and examine current organizational communication systems and processes in a UME program. Employing a phenomenology-grounded and participatory approach, this study sought to understand the organizational communication system from medical students' perspective. The research team consisted of a core team and 13 medical student co-investigators. This research employed multiple methods, including focus groups, individual interviews, and two surveys (one reflective of focus group questions, the other requesting students to submit ‘examples’ of communications). To provide context for student responses, nonstudent participants (faculty, administrators, and staff) were sampled, as they too express concerns about communication. Over 400 students across all cohorts and 17 nonstudents participated. Data were iteratively analyzed and checked for triangulation. Findings reveal the complex nature of organizational communication and student-oriented communications. They reveal program-impactful strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and tensions and speak to the role of organizational communication practices influencing both climate and culture. With regard to communications, students receive multiple, simultaneous communications from multiple sources/channels, both formal (e.g., official email) and informal (e.g., social media). Students identified organizational strengths including the desire to improve student voice, and message frequency. They also identified weaknesses related to over-reliance on emails, numerous platforms with inconsistent utilization, incorrect information, insufficient transparency, assessment/input fatigue, tacit expectations, scheduling/deadlines, responsiveness, and mental health confidentiality concerns. Moreover, they noted gaps related to lack of coordination/organization, ambiguous point-persons, student ‘voice-only’, open communication loops, lack of core centralization and consistency, and mental health bridges. Findings also revealed organizational identity and cultural characteristics as impactful on the medical school experience. Cultural characteristics included program size, diversity, urban setting, student organizations, community-engagement, crisis framing, learning for exams, inefficient bureaucracy, and professionalism. Moreover, they identified system structures that do not always leverage cultural strengths or reduce cultural problematics. Based on the results, opportunities for productive change are identified. These include leadership visibly supporting and enacting overall organizational narratives, making greater efforts in consistently ‘closing the loop’, regularly sharing how student input effects change, employing strategies of crisis communication more often, strengthening communication infrastructure, ensuring structures facilitate effective operations and change efforts, and highlighting change efforts in informational communication. Organizational communication and communications are not soft-skills, or of secondary concern within organizations, rather they are foundational in nature and serve to educate/inform all stakeholders. As primary stakeholders, students and their success directly affect the accomplishment of organizational goals. This study demonstrates how inquiries about how students navigate their educational experience extends research-based knowledge and provides actionable knowledge for the improvement of organizational operations in UME.

Keywords: medical education programs, organizational communication, participatory research, qualitative mixed methods

Procedia PDF Downloads 95