Alternative Models of Culture Change in Open Research

This is a summary of a discussion held at the June 2024 Book Dash event between participants. As such, this sub-chapter may appear more opinionated than other chapters in the guides.

Fig. 161 One depiction of culture change, based on the discussion in June 2024. The Turing Way project illustration by Scriberia. Used under a CC-BY 4.0 licence. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3332807.

Culture Change Doesn’t Happen in a Vacuum

As part of the overall Scientific Reform movement, many researchers and advocates have long acknowledged the need for substantial interventions in research culture to move practices towards more open, reproducible and collaborative work. These interventions have mostly been focused on either a) technological solutions seeking to address perceived failings and restrictions in the current academic publishing system or b) top-down policy requirements mandating openness (for example Plan S, UKRI open research stance).

However, our discussion began with many participants flagging that culture is part of an overarching series of systems within society, that are all interconnected and influence each other. Cultural change in academia, like that sought by open research advocates, therefore needs to be understood through the lens of system change. For example, many advocates want the academic credit and recognition system to move away from number of papers published as a metric for success. This would mean changing the way that promotions are awarded, research institutions evaluated, and academic knowledge shared. Publishing companies, who make large profits from publishing academic research, are likely to fight against the change if they think it will harm their profits. It is always possible to change cultures, big and small, but it will be easier when we take into account the wider factors also in play. When we seek to change the was research is produced we need to identify and consider previously unconsidered barriers and pitfalls.

Models Matter

As referenced in Strategy for Culture Change - Brian Nosek the portrayal by Nosek et al, of culture change as a pyramid with infrastructure at the bottom has drawn criticisms. Certainly participants in the culture change discussion expressed confusion, disconnect, and disappointment at the apparent disempowerment of communities inferred from their position in the diagram, and the exclusion of key factors in driving change, such as consultation with communities, feedback loops, and the impact this approach might have on researchers. The explicit hierarchy can also be interpreted as assigning relative importance to each of the stages, when often their relative importance fluctuates depending on the norms, practices, existing infrastructure, and the influence that each of these factors exerts on the other. Although the blog post in which the model is introduced offers more context about why specifically, we now frequently see the diagram taken out of context and used to justify techno-solutionism. Advocates for change therefore need to think critically about designing visual representations and how they may be misinterpreted or used out of context. There is a balance between using simple structures and clear diagrams, and communicating complex concepts effectively.

Factors to consider in culture change modelling

So, if we reject the hierarchical perspective presented by Nosek in our discussion, what are the factors we feel need to be considered when it comes to culture change in research practices? The group discussed several broad groups of factors, all of which can impact how culture change is achieved and the pathways which will be most effective in reaching the desired end goals.

The past

To be human is to exist with biases and limited perspectives. Those advocating for cultural change will find they need to push to address resistance borne out of people’s previous experiences, historical preferences, and the ease of doing things the way they have always been done.

Aligning systems and behaviour

Systems and behaviour often need to be tackled in parallel. It’s hard to change someone’s behaviour if the system is not capable of supporting the change; and changing the system does not automatically change people’s behaviours (see open access mandates). They may not match perfectly at first, but it is critical to acknowledge and address both if you are seeking long-term change.

Taking care

Change is often hard for people, even when they can clearly see the need for it. People can be risk adverse, and manage this by sticking with what they know already has worked in the past. Building the case for change, acknowledging the potential impacts and working to mitigate them, and employing specific tactics such as change champions, can all help. It is also important to hold space to discuss changes, get people excited about change, and incorporate their insights as the process proceeds.

Acknowledging power structures

The hierarchical, rigid power structures of the academic system are well known, and despite some efforts, remain relatively entrenched. Those more senior in the current system have benefited from it, and may be less motivated to support and empower those seeking change. The level of influence and empowerment individuals have to effect the culture change they want to see in the world may be limited by their seniority, or perceived expertise. This also intersects with systemic biases and injustices such as racism, sexism, and ableism, and in some cases magnifies them. This can be tackled with collective organising and action, but this also takes time to build, manage, and sustain.

Alternative models of change?

From the group discussion we came up with a number of different representations of research culture change approaches:

• A buffet of culture change factors, with sizing according their influence in specific situations, avoiding the implicit and explicit hierarchy of other models.

• An expanded pyramid with more feedback loops and other factors feeding into each level to demonstrate the complexity of change.

• A four-way matrix between human infrastructure, technical infrastructure, community needs and problems, and societal infrastructure, all interconnected and feeding back on each other.

None of these are perfect models, and in all cases, models only serve to help us structure our thinking about change and how it happens. The critical work is the doing: the talking to people, uncovering community issues, working to find solutions, and demonstrating the leadership needed to get people excited about a future that holds less of the same.