What is the extent that "Open Science" in Hostler's argument can be replaced with "quality"? In other words, management are motivated to under-recognise *all* work which goes into doing high quality research (because academics have non-institutional motivations for making work higher quality). To the extent that Open Research practices are adopted as aspects of higher quality (rather than being required institutionally as arbitrary add-ons), they will just be another example in a much larger general category of academic labour which is underrecognised but contributes to research quality (along with thorough literature reviewing, mentoring, citing properly, reviewing, etc )
If this is the case, the bonus is that efforts to ameliorate underrecognition / work-loads might cover adoption of open research practices without need for special consideration
I think you’re right - you could replace “open science” with “quality” or “professional service” in many cases and the arguments would still apply. So, like you say, “doing open science” can be considered along with mentoring and peer reviewing and other activities that are only counted in probation, promotion, and job applications. I think Hostler would probably agree? He’s making the point that open research work is just another form of “invisible work” that does not get counted in uni workload models. And yes, if we tackle the broader problem of invisible work, then we should also hopefully tackle the invisible open research workload problem.
BTW, I award you bonus workload points Tom for being the first person to comment in this blog! :-) Thank you!
I am not sure I like the sound of "bonus workload points", but i'm happy to be the first of hopefully many future comments. Thanks for writing - i've enjoyed reading all of the posts
What is the extent that "Open Science" in Hostler's argument can be replaced with "quality"? In other words, management are motivated to under-recognise *all* work which goes into doing high quality research (because academics have non-institutional motivations for making work higher quality). To the extent that Open Research practices are adopted as aspects of higher quality (rather than being required institutionally as arbitrary add-ons), they will just be another example in a much larger general category of academic labour which is underrecognised but contributes to research quality (along with thorough literature reviewing, mentoring, citing properly, reviewing, etc )
If this is the case, the bonus is that efforts to ameliorate underrecognition / work-loads might cover adoption of open research practices without need for special consideration
I think you’re right - you could replace “open science” with “quality” or “professional service” in many cases and the arguments would still apply. So, like you say, “doing open science” can be considered along with mentoring and peer reviewing and other activities that are only counted in probation, promotion, and job applications. I think Hostler would probably agree? He’s making the point that open research work is just another form of “invisible work” that does not get counted in uni workload models. And yes, if we tackle the broader problem of invisible work, then we should also hopefully tackle the invisible open research workload problem.
BTW, I award you bonus workload points Tom for being the first person to comment in this blog! :-) Thank you!
I am not sure I like the sound of "bonus workload points", but i'm happy to be the first of hopefully many future comments. Thanks for writing - i've enjoyed reading all of the posts