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.
ArtnerR.VerliefdeT.SteegenS.GomesS.TraetsF.TuerlinckxF.VanpaemelW. (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 The reproducibility of statistical results in psychological research: An investigation using unpublished raw data.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
2.
BakkerB. N.JaidkaK.DörrT.FaschingN.LelkesY. (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
3.
BamfordC.HeavenB.MayC.MoynihanP. (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
4.
BowmanN. D.RinkeE. M.LeeE.-J.NabiR.de VreeseC. 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
5.
ChakravarttyP.KuoR.GrubbsV.McIlwainC. (2018). #CommunicationSoWhite. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy003
6.
ChambersC. (2019). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton University Press.
7.
DienlinT.JohannesN.BowmanN. D.MasurP. K.EngesserS.KümpelA. S.LukitoJ.BierL. M.ZhangR.JohnsonB. K.HuskeyR.SchneiderF. M.BreuerJ.ParryD. A.VermeulenI.FisherJ. T.BanksJ.WeberR.EllisD. A.de VreeseC. (2021). An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052
8.
DrauckerC. B.MartsolfD. S.RossR.RuskT. B. (2007). Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308450
9.
FerrucciP. (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.
FoxJ.PearceK. E.MassanariA.L.RilesJ.M.SzulcL.RanjitY.S.TrevisanF. (2021). Open science, closed doors? Countering marginalization through an agenda for ethical, inclusive research in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 764–784.
11.
FramS. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. Qualitative Report, 18, 1.
12.
FreilingI.KrauseN. M.ScheufeleD. A.ChenK. (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.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1968). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
14.
Gutierrez LopezM.PorlezzaC.CooperG.MakriS.MacFarlaneA.MissaouiS. (2023). A question of design: Strategies for embedding AI-driven tools into journalistic work routines. Digital Journalism, 11(3), 484–503.
KeatingD. M.TotzkayD. (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.
KruikemeierS.LechelerS.VliegenthartR. (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.
KümpelA. S.UnkelJ. (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.
LivingstoneS. (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.
MalterudK.SiersmaV. D.GuassoraA. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1753–1760.
22.
MayC.FinchT. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509103208
23.
McKiernanE. C. (2017). Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education. PLoS biology, 15(10), e1002614.
24.
McCrackenG. (1988). The long interview. Sage.
25.
MertonR. K. (1974). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
26.
MillerK. 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.
MurrayE.TreweekS.PopeC.MacFarlaneA.BalliniL.DowrickC.FinchT.KennedyA.MairF.O’DonnellC.OngB. N.RapleyT.RogersA.MayC. (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.
NordmarkS.ZingmarkK.LindbergI. (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.
NosekB. A.HardwickeT. E.MoshontzH.AllardA.CorkerK. S.AlmenbergA. D.FidlerF.HilgardJ.KlineM.NuijtenM. B.RohrerJ. M.RomeroF.ScheelA. M.SchererL.SchönbrodtF.VazireS. (2021). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ksfvq
30.
Oeldorf-HirschA.NeubaumG. (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.
OlikoA.EzetenduA. (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.
PainP.KorinE. (2021). ‘Everything is dimming out, little by little:’examining self-censorship among Venezuelan journalists. Communication Research and Practice, 7(1), 71–88.
34.
PerreaultG. P.FerrucciP. (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
PerreaultG. P.KananovichV.HackettE. (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.
RakowL. 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.
ScarabotoD.AlmeidaS. O.de dos Santos FleckJ. 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.
SchemerC.MasurP. K.GeißS.MüllerP.SchäferS. (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.
ShawA.ScharkowM.WangZ. J. (2021). Opening a conversation on open communication research. Journal of Communication, 71, 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab033
VerbeijT.PouwelsJ. L.BeyensI.ValkenburgP. 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-SaezR.Martinez-FuentesC. (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.
WhitakerK.FieldO. (2020). #bropenscience is broken science. The Psychologist, 11, 34–37.
