The document discusses positive framings for open science through three lenses: (1) the economics of clubs as described by Elinor Ostrom, where openness can increase returns for the club over time; (2) knowledge as a product of translation between esoteric and exoteric realms as proposed by Ludwig Fleck, where openness facilitates translation; and (3) cultural science perspectives seeing science as a cultural practice sustained through open and diverse groups as suggested by Hartley and Potts. The document argues that openness has long been an aspiration in science to make knowledge more accessible and that open projects will always be works in progress that value diversity.

1. Where next for Open Science?
Finding a positive rhetoric for “the opens”
@cameronneylon
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0068-716X
These Slides - https://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/where-next-for-
open-scholarship

2. What is Open Science/Research?

3. Why are we so upset with success?

4. Is it merely reactive?
Does it have its own substance?

5. As a concept…open is reactionary; it
gains meaning largely through a
consideration of what it is not.
Tkacz (2012)

6. Three framings towards a positive
(and old) rhetoric of the opens

7. 1. The (Political) Economics of Clubs

8. Elinor Ostrom (1990)
Governing the Commons

9. He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening
mine; as he who lights his taper at mine,
receives light without darkening me.
Thomas Jefferson

10. Elinor Ostrom (1990)
Governing the Commons

11. Elinor Ostrom (1990)
Governing the Commons

12. Which clubs are sustained over time?

13. What is the return to the club?

14. *

15. 2. Knowledge as a product of translation

16. ESOTERIC
EXOTERIC
Ludwig Fleck (1981 [1935])
Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact

19. *

20. Lotman’s stages of reception
1. Exoticism
2. Translation/Adaption
3. Abstraction
4. Dissolution
5. Re-transmission
Yuri Lotman (2009)
Dialogue Mechanisms in Universe of the Mind

21. *

22. *

23. Which clubs are sustained over time?

24. 3. Cultural Science on sustainability

25. CULTURE
GROUP
Hartley and Potts (2014)
Cultural Science

26. CULTURE
GROUP
ENVIRONMENT
Hartley and Potts (2014)
Cultural Science

27. “Science” is an old culture that has
survived over a long period

28. [I will answer Linus’ objections] partly,
because the Learned Author, whoever he be
(for ‘tis the Title-Page of his Book that first
acquainted me with the name of Franciscus
Linus) having forborne provoking Language
in his Objections, allowes me in answering
them to comply with my Inclinations &
Custom of exercising Civility, even where I
most dissent in point of Judgement.” Boyle (1662)

29. Openness is an old aspiration

30. “Of my being somewhat prolix in many of my
Experiments, I have these Reasons to
render[…] That in divers cases I thought it
necessary to deliver things circumstantially,
that the Person I addressed them to might,
without mistake, and with as little trouble as
is possible, be able to repeat such unusual
Experiments”
Boyle (1627) New Experiments

31. “that not alone scientific readers, but those
of every class, [...] to approach the source
from whence this species of knowledge is
derived”
James Samuelson and William Crookes

32. “…merely an amateur, a lover of truth,
who was impelled by curiosity ”
Grant Allen

33. (Gradual, limited) openness
is an old aspiration

34. Diversity is a first order principle
for knowledge creation

36. “Open” is an old, but incomplete project…

37. …and always will be

38. @cameronneylon
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0068-716X
These Slides -
https://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/where-next-for-
open-scholarship

39. References
1. Tkacz (2012) From open source to open government: A critique of open politics,
http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/open-source-open-government-critique-open-politics-0
2. Hartley and Potts (2014) Cultural Science, https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/cultural-science-a-natural-
history-of-stories-demes-knowledge-and-innovation/
3. Boyle (1627-1691) A defence of the doctring of the spring of the air,
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A28956.0001.001/1:6?rgn=div1;view=toc
4. Fleck (1981[1935]) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact,
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo25676016.html
5. Lotman (2009) Dialogue Mechanisms in Universe of the Mind,
http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=21492
6. Ostrom (1990) Governing the Commons, http://www.cambridge.org/cy/academic/subjects/politics-international-
relations/political-theory/governing-commons-evolution-institutions-collective-action-
1?format=PB&isbn=9781107569782#Ii164gTK70IeIoy0.97
7. Buchannan (1965) An Economic Theory of Clubs, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2552442
8. Lightman (2017) Popularizers, participation and the transformations of nineteenth-century publishing: From the
1860s to the 1880s, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0029
9. Collins and Evans (2016) Why Democracies Need Science, http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-
1509509607.html
10. Neylon (2017) Openness in Scholarship: A return to core values? (this paper),
http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/46638