Key takeaways from an online panel discussion with Dr. Simon Dumas Primbault, Prof. Dr. Lai Ma, and Dr. Samuel Moore

 

Authors: Maaike Duine and Maike Neufend

Recommended citation: Duine, M. and M. Neufend (2026). "Practicing and defining openness in the Social Sciences and Humanities: are concepts, practices, policies and infrastructure (mis)aligned?" Open Research Blog Berlin. https://doi.org/10.59350/sz8gh-jm777

Within our project „Open Science Magnifiers”, we aim to develop discipline-specific indicators for several disciplines, one of which is the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). After initially concentrating on outputs, such as journal articles, book chapters, conference papers, blog posts, and open data, we encountered challenges due to a lack of available data sources. Therefore, we are currently interviewing SSH researchers on how they perceive and practice open research; what is important to them, at what stage in their career and why? Based on these interviews we aim to describe SSH Open Science Case Studies and shift the focus from monitoring open research outputs to monitoring open research processes. How can this be achieved?

To develop a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of openness in SSH, and of monitoring SSH open research processes, we invited three international experts for an online panel discussion as part of our event series “Magnifying Open Science”. Before engaging with the audience, they first shared their insights and perspectives from their work and ongoing research projects.

Simon Dumas Primbault (OpenEdition, CNRS, France) introduced OpenEdition – a French public research infrastructure for open scholarly communication in the SSH. This platform comprises a wide range of open access outputs, such as books and journals, as well as blogs and events. He pointed out the broad variety of open research practices in SSH that are less visible, such as citizen science and participatory research, which should be included in the broader SSH open science framework. Simon Dumas Primbault also presented the initial results of the Project PaRéDo SHS (2024-2027), which observes sharing and reuse of research data in SSH, where there seems to be a contradiction between research data practices and research data policies. By considering criticism from the academic community and acknowledging the constructed nature of research data, the project highlights the epistemological impact of infrastructures as a nexus of tensions and a normative force.

In her presentation, Lai Ma (University College Dublin, Ireland) underscored the misalignment between open research policies and open research practices in SSH. Interviews showed that some SSH researchers perceive openness as mandated through policies and funding requirements, and not as shared practices that emerge from their own disciplinary norms. She stressed how the open research focus remains on STEM disciplines, not only in policies but also in research infrastructures and metadata standards. This causes problems for practicing openness and the idea of openness in SSH. Lai Ma additionally noted that open research practices are very diverse within SSH itself, as well as what is considered ‘data’: we should bear in mind that ‘one size does not fit all’. She concluded: Openness should not be an end itself; we always have to ask ourselves, why do we want to open research?

Samual Moore (University of Cambridge, UK) introduced the MORPHSS (Materialising Open Research Practices in HSS) project. He underlined the fact that many open research policies and concepts, such as reproducibility and preregistration, are directed towards the STEM disciplines. This also applies for the UNESCO Open Science recommendation: there is a strong focus on open research infrastructures and open research knowledge but other pillars – open dialogue with other knowledge systems, open engagement of societal actors – are more important for SSH researchers. To address this misalignment, the MORPHHS Project has identified 30 open research practices in the Arts and Humanities, and the Social Sciences. They specifically made this distinction within SSH, and also focus more on processes and underlying practices of openness. Additionally, six key forms of openness were defined: participatory openness, epistemic openness, process openness, evidentiary openness, availability of outputs, and accessible communication of research.

 

Screenshot presentation: MORPHSS (Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences): Introducing the MORPHSS Project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19660827

The discussion that followed the three presentations, focused on challenges of practicing openness in SSH and the misalignment of policies and practices. Samual Moore stressed that policies see openness as an end, closely tied to research outputs. The focus should be shifted towards the processes involved in sharing research results. Researchers should be incentivized for sharing their research with a special focus on experimentation. However, describing and monitoring these types of processes can be challenging as standard labels for describing SSH open practices are not helpful. He advised starting from a normative perspective and considering what openness is useful for, i.e. social cohesion and collectivity. Reflecting on openness as practiced within SSH as a flexible term should also be taken into account.

Lai Ma stated that for some researchers, openness is more than just responding to policies; they want to transfer knowledge into different communities, that is meaningful openness for them. Simon Dumas Primbault agreed that there are differences between researchers who only make things open when they are requested to do so, for example to publish Data Management Plans (DMPs), and others that are convinced about the value of open research. Samuel Moore underscored that mandating open research practices is an unhelpful way of encouraging open research. It is preferable if open research practices come from communities, because researchers can be much better convinced by their peers and discipline-specific differences can be taken into account. Simon Dumas Primbault describes OpenEdition as a product of a combination of top-down/bottom-up approaches to incentivize open research practices. It started with a bottom-up initiative but has now been institutionalized by the top-down system in France as an instrument to implement OA policies. With this, he added, risks that support staff in universities may feel alienated, could appear. Through an inhouse lab at OpenEdition research from within research infrastructures becomes an important node between infrastructure and research. Lai Ma agreed that there should be a balance between top-down and bottom-up approaches. Reforming research evaluation is also an important part of this.

The discussion continued on the importance of policy makers taking into account different discipline-specific perspectives when developing open research policies. Simon Dumas Primbault stated that policy makers need to consider the resources and infrastructures needed for applying openness, as SSH researchers do agree with openness principles. Lai Ma agreed that researchers do care about transparency and reproducibility but these practices are often difficult to operationalize in SSH. Samual Moore advised that critical reflections on policies are needed and that feedback should be gathered from SSH researchers already practicing openness. He added that more inclusion is needed, and that this is not unique within SSH, but this is also heard in STEM disciplines.

An alternative would be for researchers to write their own discipline-specific open research policies. The panelists agreed that if researchers had the resources this could be a valuable option. Even though it would be difficult to get consensus. It was concluded that reaching consensus and alignment between open research practices and policies is crucial for advancing openness in SSH.

Key takeaways:

• Research and publishing practices and processes in the SSH differ from those in the STEM sciences, and therefore what is considered open research differs as well
• There are different forms of openness and openness should be considered as an open, flexible term
• Focus should not only be on open research outputs, but on open research processes as well, better yet on how you share openly as process of experimentation
• What counts as open research practice should be developed with research communities, in line with the Open Science Monitoring Principles (OSMI)
• In the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities at least 30 open research practices can be identified
• Operationalizing open research processes for monitoring purposes is challenging but useful for identifying the diversity of meanings
• Reasons for researchers to practice openness vary greatly: this can be done out of policy and funding requirements or out of principles, values and ideas about openness
• Danger of misaligned incentives and policies should be considered. A top-down approach to practicing open research is often unhelpful  
• Research from within research infrastructures offer a valuable connection point between research and infrastructure

Presentations:

• Dumas Primbault, S. (2026, April 20). Studying Open Science from Within. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19661276
• Ma, L. (2026, April 20). Open Research for the Humanities? Magnifying Open Research Culture in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19661055
• Moore, S. (2026, April 20). MORPHSS (Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences): Introducing the MORPHSS Project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19660827

There is still time to register for the final event in our event series: Magnifying Open Science: Insights from the BUA Participatory Research Map and more. The online event will take place on Thursday April 23rd, 14-15.30H (CET). You can find additional information and the registration link here.