Seite - 20 - in Radical Solutions and Open Science - An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

2 OpenScienceandRadicalSolutions forDiversity,Equity… 21 assumedcoherenceinregardtoOpenSciencestill lacksempirical research”(Fecher &Friesike,2014,36)andaddsthattheclassificationofOpenSciencerequiresdeeper analysis, too. Basedontheir literature review,Vicente-SaezandMartinez-Fuentes (2018)have clustered the collected studies into four categories to characterize Open Science: transparent, accessible, shared and collaborative-developed. The integration of the fourcharacteristicsleadsVicente-SaezandMartinez-Fuentestothedefinition:“Open Scienceistransparentandaccessibleknowledgethatissharedanddevelopedthrough collaborative networks” (Vicente-Saez&Martinez-Fuentes, 2018, 434).However, it remains questionable whether the sole focus on knowledge is covering a broad rangeofperspectives.Therefore, it ismaybemorepromisingtoaddress themultiple objectivesofOpenScienceandtocoverthemthroughabroaddefinitionforacommon andclearunderstandingsharedbyallstakeholdergroups.AndIbelievethat it isstill tooearly for suchaglobaldefinitionofOpenScience in this “turbulentyet exciting timeoftransition”(Arabito&Pitrelli,2015,2)anditcouldmaybeevenbeimpossible given thediverseperspectives (like it is thecasewith the termOpenEducation, see Stracke (2019)andbelow). In addition, the English language, in particular, and their terms and common understandings are causing problems forOpenScience and its definition based on knowledge. First, the term knowledge has specific connotations and at least two understandings in theEnglish languageas singularity aspointedout byFecher and Friesike(2014):Thereisadistinction“betweenknowledgecreationthatisconcerned withtherulesofthenaturalworld(science)andknowledgecreationthatisconcerned with the human condition (humanities)” (Fecher&Friesike, 2014, 4). Second, the termscience isnot coveringall scientific subjects anddisciplines: Itwascontrasted withhumanities fora longtimeuntilKaganwascoiningthenewterm threecultures addingsocial sciencesnext tosciencesandhumanities (Kagan,2009;Sidler,2014). This new distinction into three scientific sectionsmakes it evenmore challenging to use the termOpenScience. Furthermore, I have already discussed abovewhich problems the term science is causing for the classification of disciplines. Thus, I will continue usingOpenScience as an umbrella term embracing and referring to all scientific subjects and disciplines, as well as different objectives and purposes that canbeobjective (suchasbetter formal reliability) andsubjective (more trust in research). A broad, and therefore, vagueworking definition could be (andwill be used in the following):OpenScience is a combination of objective and subjective goals andmeans to improve science in thediverse subjects anddisciplines andasa whole. 2.3.2 ObjectivesandCharacteristicsofOpenScience TherearetwomajorobjectivesofOpenScience:first,higherreliabilityoftheresearch findingsandsecond,greatertrust inscientificresearch,bothobjectiveswiththeinten- tiontoovercomethefakenewsfromthepost-truthage(Cook,Lloyd,Mellor,Nosek