Abstract The contribution traces the adoption of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) by Austrian research-performing institutions. Starting from its trajectories, the article sketches how Open Science has been imbued with competing meanings, resulting in conflicting interpretations of the goals of EOSC. In this, official EOSC narratives have moved away from the current Open Science discourse, which accounts for the hesitancy of researchers and institutions towards EOSC. This is made plausible by contextualizing Open Science within the broader context of science studies to argue that competing narratives result in persistent tensions which surface in moments of practical implementation. As a result, EOSC operates in a highly contested environment, existing within a broader matrix of European policy frameworks, and in this sense, EOSC is susceptible to contradictory interpretations. Its foundational philosophy, the FAIR Guiding Principles, tacitly universalizes one set of practices, norms, and values as the sole reference point. Through anecdotal evidence from research support staff active in the implementation of EOSC, the article describes how the tensions embodied in the development of EOSC are perpetuated “on the ground” of research practices.
Reichmann et al. (Wed,) studied this question.