Normalizing Open Science Practice: Understandings,Evaluations,and Implementations of Open Science Practices in the Field of Communication

Abstract

Arabic

Spanish

French

Chinese

Communication research has recently entered the discussion on open science. Through the lens of Normalization Process Theory, this preregistered qualitative study addresses how open science has been normalized within the field of mass communication. Through 19 semistructured in-depth interviews with communication scholars from across the globe and different career stages, the results reflect that scholars are driven to implement open science for idealistic, research-oriented, and political reasons. Yet, scholars have reservations regarding open science’s feasibility and concerns for participant privacy. In particular, this study identifies issues of coherence in open science that are key to its implementation.

Keywords

open science normalization process theory communication replicability qualitative research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Artner

Verliefde

Steegen

Gomes

Traets

Tuerlinckx

Vanpaemel

(2021). The reproducibility of statistical results in psychological research: An investigation using unpublished raw data. Psychological Methods, 26(5), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000365

Bakker

B. N.

Jaidka

Dörr

Fasching

Lelkes

(2021). Questionable and open research practices: Attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab031

Bamford

Heaven

May

Moynihan

(2012). Implementing nutrition guidelines for older people in residential care homes: A qualitative study using Normalization Process Theory. Implementation Science, 7(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-106

Bowman

N. D.

Rinke

E. M.

Lee

E.-J.

Nabi

de Vreese

C. H.

(2022). How communication scholars see open scholarship. Annals of the International Communication Association, 46, 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2108880

Chakravartty

Kuo

Grubbs

McIlwain

(2018). #CommunicationSoWhite. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy003

Chambers

(2019). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton University Press.

Dienlin

Johannes

Bowman

N. D.

Masur

P. K.

Engesser

Kümpel

A. S.

Lukito

Bier

L. M.

Zhang

Johnson

B. K.

Huskey

Schneider

F. M.

Breuer

Parry

D. A.

Vermeulen

Fisher

J. T.

Banks

Weber

Ellis

D. A.

de Vreese

(2021). An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052

Draucker

C. B.

Martsolf

D. S.

Ross

Rusk

T. B.

(2007). Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308450

Ferrucci

(2017). Exploring public service journalism: Digitally native news nonprofits and engagement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016681968

10.

Fox

Pearce

K. E.

Massanari

A.L.

Riles

J.M.

Szulc

Ranjit

Y.S.

Trevisan

. (2021). Open science, closed doors? Countering marginalization through an agenda for ethical, inclusive research in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 764–784.

11.

Fram

S. M.

(2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. Qualitative Report, 18, 1.

12.

Freiling

Krause

N. M.

Scheufele

D. A.

Chen

(2021). The science of open (communication) science: Toward an evidence-driven understanding of quality criteria in communication research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 686–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab032

13.

Glaser

Strauss

(1968). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.

14.

Gutierrez Lopez

Porlezza

Cooper

Makri

MacFarlane

Missaoui

(2023). A question of design: Strategies for embedding AI-driven tools into journalistic work routines. Digital Journalism, 11(3), 484–503.

15.

Hillyer

(2017). Confessions of an open access advocate—Leslie Chan. https://ocsdnet.org/confessions-of-an-open-access-advocate-leslie-chan/

16.

International Communication Association. (2020, July 6). Open scholarship and open science updates. https://www.icahdq.org/blogpost/1523657/351709/Open-Scholarship-Open-Science-Updates

17.

Keating

D. M.

Totzkay

(2019). We do publish (conceptual) replications (sometimes): Publication trends in communication science, 2007–2016. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43, 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1632218

18.

Kruikemeier

Lecheler

Vliegenthart

(2022). What is holding us back? We should be looking ahead! Considerations about open science practices in Journalism Studies. Digital Journalism, 11, 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2116722

19.

Kümpel

A. S.

Unkel

(2021). (Why) does comment presentation order matter for the effects of user comments? Assessing the role of the availability heuristic and the bandwagon heuristic. Communication Research Reports, 38(4), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2021.1915269

20.

Livingstone

(2010). Giving people a voice: On the critical role of the interview in the history of audience research. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3(4), 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2010.01086.x

21.

Malterud

Siersma

V. D.

Guassora

A. D.

(2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1753–1760.

22.

May

Finch

(2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509103208

23.

McKiernan

E. C.

(2017). Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education. PLoS biology, 15(10), e1002614.

24.

McCracken

(1988). The long interview. Sage.

25.

Merton

R. K.

(1974). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

26.

Miller

K. C.

(2023). The “price you pay” and the “badge of honor”: Journalists, gender, and harassment. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(1), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221088761

27.

Murray

Treweek

Pope

MacFarlane

Ballini

Dowrick

Finch

Kennedy

Mair

O’Donnell

Ong

B. N.

Rapley

Rogers

May

. (2010). Normalisation process theory: A framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Medicine, 8(1), Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-63

28.

Nordmark

Zingmark

Lindberg

(2016). Process evaluation of discharge planning implementation in healthcare using normalization process theory. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16(1), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0285-4

29.

Nosek

B. A.

Hardwicke

T. E.

Moshontz

Allard

Corker

K. S.

Almenberg

A. D.

Fidler

Hilgard

Kline

Nuijten

M. B.

Rohrer

J. M.

Romero

Scheel

A. M.

Scherer

Schönbrodt

Vazire

(2021). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ksfvq

30.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

Neubaum

(2023). Attitudinal and behavioral correlates of algorithmic awareness among German and US social media users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(5), zmad035.

31.

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

32.

Oliko

Ezetendu

(2023) Fostering Collaboration with Open-Docs. org: Building a Community of Open-Source Publishers in the Global South. In Open Infrastructure Fund/Fondo de Infraestructura Abierta.

33.

Pain

Korin

(2021). ‘Everything is dimming out, little by little:’examining self-censorship among Venezuelan journalists. Communication Research and Practice, 7(1), 71–88.

34.

Perreault

G. P.

Ferrucci

(2020). What is digital journalism? Defining the practice and role of the digital journalist. Digital Journalism, 8(10), 1298–1316. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1848442

35.

Perreault

G. P.

Hanusch

(2023). Normalizing Instagram. Digital Journalism, 12, 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2152069

36.

Perreault

G. P.

Kananovich

Hackett

(2023). Guarding the firewall: How political journalists distance themselves from the editorial endorsement process. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(2), 354–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221084609

37.

Rakow

L. F.

(2011). Commentary: Interviews and focus groups as critical and cultural methods. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(2), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901108800211

38.

Scaraboto

Almeida

S. O.

de dos Santos Fleck

J. P.

(2020). “No piracy talk”: How online brand communities work to denormalize controversial gaming practices. Internet Research, 30(4), 1103–1122. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-12-2018-0529

39.

Schemer

Masur

P. K.

Geiß

Müller

Schäfer

(2021). The impact of Internet and social media use on well-being: A longitudinal analysis of adolescents across nine years. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa014

40.

Shaw

Scharkow

Wang

Z. J.

(2021). Opening a conversation on open communication research. Journal of Communication, 71, 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab033

41.

Utz

(2017). ReDefTie (Wave 5): Redefining tie strength—How social media (can) help us to get non-redundant useful information and emotional support (http://www.redeftie.eu/). CentERdata. https://doi.org/10.17026/DANS-26U-FQA9

42.

Vega

P. C.

(2018). Open Insights: An interview with Leslie Chan. Open Library of Humanities. https://www.openlibhums.org/news/314/

43.

Verbeij

Pouwels

J. L.

Beyens

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2021). Self-reported measures of social media use show high predictive validity [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/c9bj7

44.

Vicente-Saez

Martinez-Fuentes

(2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043

45.

Whitaker

Field

(2020). #bropenscience is broken science. The Psychologist, 11, 34–37.