Background Discourses of ‘Open Science’ have been criticised for privileging the quantitative and positivist methodologies of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research at the expense of qualitative, interpretive, critical-theoretical, practice-based, and other forms of research more common in the arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS). Methods In this article, which emerged from a work component of the MORPHSS (Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences) project, we document the process, outcomes and practical implications of work to develop a catalogue of open research practices in these disciplines, which proceeded via a wide-ranging literature review followed by targeted desk research and a conceptual mapping exercise. Results Key findings include the fact that open research practices in AHSS are diverse, extending beyond the suite of practices emphasised within dominant accounts of Open Science. We identify among these practices a range of forms of openness including those focused on mobilising the involvement and expert knowledge of diverse participants and communities. Conclusions Presenting a typology of forms of openness in AHSS that is consistent with the epistemic logics of these disciplines, we conclude that openness in AHSS is highly situated and context-dependent, as well as resisting quantification and binary measurement. Drawing on these conclusions, we offer a series of recommendations for institutions, open research monitoring initiatives, funders, publishers, learned societies and researchers to enhance the inclusivity of their policy and practice around openness.
Adams et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: