Page - 18 - in Radical Solutions and Open Science - An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

2 OpenScienceandRadicalSolutions forDiversity,Equity… 19 theprogressiveandcumulative increaseofscientificknowledge,whileKuhn(1962) postulatespotentialparadigmshiftsinaddition,whereasFeyerabend(1978)neglects progressiveandcumulativeincreaseofscientificknowledge,aswellas theexistence ofuniversalmethodologicalrules.Inconsequence,manysciencestudieswereunder- takenwithdifferent labels andschoolsof thoughts toanalyse thepast and futureof science. That includes the attempt to create a new discipline called the sociology of science (David, 1998, 2004a, 2007). It is often based on the sociology of sci- ence norms from “the Republic of Science” byMerton (1996, 1973) that can be summarized by the four core aspects: communism, universalism, disinterestedness andorganizedscepticism(alsoabbreviatedasCUDO).Otherscientistshaverevised them:MacfarlaneandCheng(2008)addedoriginalityandshortenedorganizedscep- ticismtoscepticismleadingtotheabbreviationCUDOSwhereasZiman(1994,2000) has additionally changed communism to communalism. In general, the ambiguity betweenscienceas a subject for researchandscienceas amethodologyused in the research is causing confusion, at least inEnglish leading to a variety of competing classification systems (e.g., sciencevs. technology studies or formal vs. natural vs. social sciences). Inthemodernscienceofthetwentiethcentury,OpenScienceiscloselyconnected with theemergenceofopensourceandopenaccess according toWillinsky (2005). Inthe1960sand1970s,freedomdominatedtheacademicworldandscienceandany softwaredevelopedbyscientists andengineers inacademic, aswell as incorporate laboratorieswas freely shared,modified and re-used (vonHippel, 2005;Markoff, 2005).Butonlyafewyears later, thecommercializationofHigherEducationbegan witha large impact, amongotherson thepublicationandaccess to research results, too (Bok,2003). The open sourcemovement startedwhen Stallmann resigned his professorship and leftMITdue to its decision for licensing anynewly developed computer code leading to restrictions (Stallmann,2005).Hefounded theFreeSoftwareFoundation andformedtheGNUGeneralPublicLicensethatquicklywasandstillisusedbroadly to releasesoftwareas freeproductsandcode tobere-usedbyothers.Theconfusion that free softwaremeans (as theGNUGPLstill allows tocharge fordistributionor support of free software) led to the definition of the new termopen source coined byPeterson in theyear 1998 (according to theOxfordEnglishDictionary, citedby Willinsky,2005). Next to the commercialization ofHigherEducation (Czarnitzki,Grimpe&Pel- lens, 2015; Shibayama, 2015), new general copyright rules and lawswere devel- oped and approved inside and outside of the academicworld and science (David, 2004b). They aremainly intended to protect intellectual property rights (IPR) and inparticulareconomic interestsofbusinessandcorporates.Amajor impactof them is the complete turnaround of the default: Before their approval, everybody could shareandre-useanypublicationwithoutacopyrightstatement.After theirapproval, everybodycan share and re-useonlypublicationswithanexplicit open license that allows sharing and re-usage. That led to confusion among researchers, as well as educators and all citizens and to several manifestos, that were initiated and pub- lished (BudapestOpenAccess Initiative, 2002;BerlinDeclaration, 2003;Bethesda