New report urges broader definition of “open research" to include arts, humanities and social science practices  

As Open Research gains traction across the research landscape, a new report challenges funders and institutions to expand their understanding of openness to better reflect arts, humanities and social science (AHSS) research.  

Released this week, the report offers a timely contribution to debates about the narrow implementation of Open Research at a time when AHSS disciplines are underfunded and at risk of devaluation.

While Open Research is commonly understood as a set of practices that aim to make research processes and outputs accessible, the report argues that existing frameworks are often shaped by their close association with Open Science. These frameworks tend to privilege STEM-based methodologies and approaches to sharing research, limiting their relevance for AHSS disciplines.

It warns that, without coordinated action, frameworks shaped largely around STEM research could further marginalise AHSS disciplines and leave researchers without the support needed to put openness into practice. 

The report was produced as part of Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences (MORPHSS), a three-year project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Wellcome Trust and Research England. MORPHSS seeks to address the marginalisation of AHSS research practices and provide pertinent recommendations to funders, institutions, open research monitoring initiatives, publishers and researchers. 

The project is led by Cambridge University Library in collaboration with Cambridge Digital Humanities, Coventry University, the University of Sheffield and the University of Southampton.  

Beyond STEM 

The report argues that Open Research, or ‘Open Science’, is often understood primarily through practices aimed at scientific reproducibility. While these practices remain valuable, they largely reflect research cultures most found in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). 

This emphasis on STEM-oriented models can result in open research practices within AHSS disciplines being either excluded from Open Research frameworks, or in AHSS researchers encouraged to adopt approaches that do not align with their research practices. 

The report finds that openness in AHSS often manifests in ways not fully accommodated by existing open research policies. For example, open research in AHSS often involves participatory practices involving co-production and collaboration with community partners, or experimentation with digital forms of publishing that go beyond the print book. Even more familiar practices of open access and data sharing encompass a wider range of practices and levels of openness within AHSS than policies expect.

These examples reflect an openness with layers and depth, beyond simply being either open or closed, which can ultimately contribute to more equitable and inclusive knowledge creation.

The MORPHSS report and accompanying catalogue identify 30 open research practices across AHSS disciplines. The study finds that many such practices have existed for decades without being labelled “Open Research”. 

As the report (page 35) argues:

"Openness in the arts, humanities and social sciences is just as vital as in STEM, and... proper recognition and reward of these practices could contribute to “enriched education, politics, compassion, imagination and understanding” in the human world."

Call to action 

MORPHSS calls on funders, institutions and policymakers to ensure that future frameworks and policies promoting openness reflect the full diversity of scholarly practice, so that knowledge, in all its forms, can remain accessible and beneficial to society.