Open Research

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Open researchers must follow the same ethical codes as traditional researchers—and arguably need an even stronger ethical framework because they lack institutional support structures.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Core claim: Open research requires the same ethical standards as institutional research, possibly stronger ones.
• Why stronger ethics may be needed: Open researchers don't have the same institutional support systems that traditional researchers rely on.
• Practical requirement: Knowing good research methods is not enough; consistent practice and developing a personal moral compass are crucial.
• Common confusion: Openness itself is not a substitute for ethics—transparency is a long-standing scholarly virtue, not unique to open research.
• Tools available: Frameworks combining research ethics principles and philosophical ethics can help open researchers think through ethical decisions.

🔍 The ethical challenge for open researchers

🔍 Same standards, different context

• The excerpt emphasizes that open researchers "need to be bound by the same ethical codes as traditional research."
• This is not about lowering standards or creating separate rules for open work.
• The difference lies in the support structure, not the ethical requirements.

🏛️ Why open research may need stronger ethics

• Traditional institutional researchers have organizational frameworks and oversight.
• Open researchers often work outside these structures.
• Without institutional support, individual researchers must rely more heavily on their own judgment.
• Example: An independent researcher cannot defer ethical questions to an institutional review board and must develop their own decision-making framework.

🧭 Building your moral compass

🧭 Beyond knowledge to practice

It's not enough to simply know about good research methods: it's also important to practice them consistently.

• The excerpt distinguishes between understanding ethical principles and actually applying them.
• Consistency matters—ethical behavior must be habitual, not occasional.
• The goal is developing "your own moral compass" as an open researcher.

🛠️ Framework for ethical decision-making

The excerpt references "A Framework for the Ethics of Open Education" that combines:

• Research ethics principles (mentioned in section 2.2 of the source material)
• Resources from philosophical ethics

The framework organizes ethical thinking into three approaches:

Ethical approach	Focus	Examples from framework
Duties & Responsibilities (deontological)	What you must do	Respect for participant autonomy; Informed consent; Full disclosure
Outcomes (consequentialist)	Results and impacts	Avoid harm / minimize risk; Privacy & data security
Personal Development (virtue)	Character and habits	Integrity; Independence

🤔 Self-reflection questions

The excerpt suggests examining:

• Whether you act from judgment or emotion
• How you account for others' perspectives
• Whether your ethical approaches are consistent
• Note: Philosophical ethics can help answer these questions systematically.

🔄 Openness vs. transparency

🔄 Transparency as a scholarly virtue

• The excerpt clarifies that "the need to have a certain transparency about the research process and any findings is a long-standing scholarly virtue."
• This means transparency existed before "open research" as a movement.
• Don't confuse: Openness as a specific concern vs. transparency as a general research requirement.

🔄 Openness introduces complexity

• The excerpt mentions that openness "introduces complexities" into research (referencing Farrow 2016).
• These complexities require additional ethical reflection beyond traditional transparency.
• Example: Publishing data openly raises different privacy questions than simply reporting findings transparently.

📚 Practical resources

📚 Tools mentioned

• A Framework for the Ethics of Open Education: Helps think clearly about ethical significance of activities; available in PDF, Word, and RTF formats.
• OER Research Hub Ethics Manual: Written for an open research project team to facilitate reflection on ethical issues.

📚 Ongoing ethical work

• "Every research project is different" so questions and uncertainties will persist.
• Whether institutional or independent, researchers must "keep thinking for yourself."
• Continuous judgment about research ethics and "the impact openness can have on research" is required.
• This is an active, ongoing process, not a one-time checklist.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Open research is a practice of sharing methods, data, and findings throughout the research process—not just at publication—to enable collaboration, transparency, and broader impact.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What open research means: sharing outputs, methodologies, data, and tools throughout a project's duration, not only at the end.
• How it differs from traditional research: enables ongoing feedback and collaboration during the research process, rather than waiting for final publication.
• Key characteristics: transparency, removal of barriers to access, collaboration, and ethical obligation (especially for publicly funded work).
• Common confusion: openness vs. loss of control—open licensing requires attribution but doesn't mean losing authorship; it invites unpredictable reuse and serendipitous outcomes.
• Why it matters: increases visibility, enables early feedback, supports social justice by removing cost barriers, and can strengthen research quality through community input.

🔍 Understanding openness

🔍 What "openness" encompasses

Participants in the course identified multiple interconnected dimensions of openness:

• Sharing as practice: releasing material publicly, making it available for comment and reuse, and clearly indicating how it should be used and attributed (e.g., through open licensing).
• Removing barriers: ensuring no financial, legal, or technical obstacles prevent access and reuse.
• Transparency and honesty: inviting feedback and showing the "messiness" of research, not just polished final outputs.

Open Educational Resources (OER): "teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use and repurposing by others."

🧩 Authorship vs. ownership

• A key distinction emerged: open licensing does not mean losing authorship.
• Attribution requirements ensure creators are credited even when others reuse or remix the work.
• Don't confuse: releasing material openly ≠ giving up recognition; it means enabling others to build on your work while you retain credit.

🌍 Social justice dimension

• Openness can act as a "social justice enabler" by removing cost barriers to accessing resources.
• Example: publicly funded research becomes accessible to those who cannot afford subscription fees.

🔬 Defining open research

🔬 Core characteristics

Open research involves:

• Sharing throughout the process: not just final papers, but interim findings, methodologies, data, and tools.
• Enabling collaboration: by publishing methods and findings as you go, others can comment, advise, and engage before final publication.
• Transparency in methods: showing how research was conducted, including challenges and changes in direction.

Example: A long-term statistical project releases interim data and findings before completion, providing value to the public earlier (with clear metadata about time periods).

⚖️ Ethical obligation

• There is an ethical responsibility to conduct open research, particularly when publicly funded.
• The public has a right to access research they have supported financially.

🤝 Collaboration and feedback benefits

• Open research allows others to identify flaws in methodology early, before publication.
• Shows junior researchers that research is "rarely a clean progression" but involves reworking and adaptation.
• Can transform "negative research" (studies that don't get intended results) into valuable shared knowledge.

Don't confuse: open research with uncontrolled research—you can still choose what to share and when, while maintaining ethical standards.

🛠️ Open research in practice

🛠️ Stages where openness applies

The research process includes multiple stages where openness can be incorporated:

Stage	How openness applies	Potential benefits
Planning	Share research proposals and frameworks	Early feedback on design
Methodologies	Publish methods and instruments	Others can replicate or improve
Data	Release datasets (with proper ethics)	Enables secondary analysis
Tools	Share software and analysis tools	Community can build on your work
Dissemination	Publish findings openly (not behind paywalls)	Wider audience and impact

📊 Open access publishing

• Traditional publishing often places research behind expensive paywalls.
• Open access removes these barriers, increasing visibility, usage, and citation impact.
• Studies show open access articles receive more citations than paywalled articles.

Example: A researcher in a developing country can access and build upon openly published findings without institutional subscription fees.

🌐 Impact in developing countries

• Open data and research help reduce corruption and lower information costs.
• Enables researchers without wealthy institutional backing to participate fully in global research conversations.

⚠️ Challenges and considerations

⚠️ Vulnerability and risk

• Being open means being "super-vulnerable"—your work is exposed to criticism early.
• Requires humility: you cannot predict or control how others will use your work.
• Some researchers worry about plagiarism or being "scooped."

⏱️ Time and effort

• Making research open (with proper documentation, metadata, licensing) takes additional time.
• Question for new researchers: Is this achievable for a PhD, or too risky/time-consuming?

🎯 Loss of control as opportunity

• You cannot control the impact and reuse of openly shared materials.
• However, this can lead to serendipitous outcomes and unexpected collaborations.
• The unpredictability is both a challenge and an exciting feature of open practice.

🔐 Ethics and privacy

• Not all research can or should be fully open (e.g., sensitive participant data).
• Researchers must balance openness with ethical obligations to protect participants.
• Proper planning around what to share, when, and how is essential.

Don't confuse: being open with being reckless—ethical considerations and participant protection remain paramount.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Open research requires researchers to apply the same ethical principles as traditional institutional research—and arguably even stronger ethical awareness—because they often work beyond institutional oversight and must function as their own review panel.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Core ethical principles: Respect for autonomy, avoiding harm, full disclosure, privacy/data security, integrity, independence, and informed consent apply to all research, open or not.
• Institutional vs. independent research: Institutional review boards provide oversight, but open researchers working outside institutions must develop their own "moral compass" and continuously reflect on ethical implications.
• Openness creates new tensions: Making data openly available can conflict with privacy protection; the more raw data released, the greater the privacy risk, yet redaction reduces reuse value.
• Common confusion: Legal compliance ≠ ethical research; many actions are legal but unethical (e.g., sharing private correspondence, breaking promises).
• Ongoing responsibility: Ethical reflection must continue throughout the research lifecycle and into dissemination, not just at project approval.

🏛️ Institutional research ethics

🏛️ Origins and common frameworks

• Most institutional ethics codes trace back to the Helsinki Declaration (1964), created partly in response to unethical research practices revealed after World War II.
• Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the USA are direct descendants of this declaration.
• Despite geographic differences, most institutional codes express very similar principles worldwide—they share a "common family tree."

📋 Core principles across major bodies

The excerpt compares guidance from three UK research governance bodies (ESRC, BERA, BPS). All emphasize:

Principle	What it means	Example application
Respect for autonomy	Participants take part voluntarily; their rights, dignity, and autonomy are protected	No coercion; fair treatment regardless of age, gender, race, etc.
Avoid harm / minimize risk	Research value must outweigh risks; harm must be mitigated	Risk should be no greater than ordinary life; stop immediately if harm occurs
Full disclosure	Provide appropriate information about purpose, methods, uses, risks, and benefits	If deception is methodologically necessary, protect dignity and autonomy
Privacy & data security	Respect anonymity preferences; protect confidential data	Comply with Data Protection Act; store consent records securely
Integrity	Design, review, and conduct research to ensure quality and transparency	Make data and methods open to reasonable scrutiny
Independence	Research independence should be clear; conflicts of interest explicit	Researchers have the right to publish findings independently
Informed consent	Sufficient information + no coercion = free decision	Consent forms should be signed; for children under 16, also obtain parental consent

🔍 What institutional review covers

• Legal compliance: Research must be legal, but ethics goes beyond law—many legal actions are unethical (adultery, breaking promises, queue-jumping).
• Focus on individuals: Institutional approvals typically protect individuals rather than groups.
• Limitations: Approvals are often project-specific and may not cover all changes as research evolves.

🌐 Research beyond institutions

🌐 When institutional approval isn't required

• Example: surveying MOOC users, using Facebook to connect with adult learners, working with open data independently.
• Key challenge: No formal oversight means researchers must "effectively function as their own review panel."
• Still required: Apply the same basic principles—avoiding harm, ensuring informed consent, respecting privacy and persons.

⚠️ Why institutional approval alone isn't enough

Three reasons continuous ethical reflection is necessary:

1. Group vs. individual protection: Institutional approvals focus on individuals, but research can affect groups.
2. Research activities change: Projects evolve significantly over time.
3. Open projects have many variables: Much is beyond the researcher's control.

Example: If you plan to release data openly, this must be made very clear in consent forms so participants know what they're agreeing to.

🔄 Openness across the research cycle

Open practices can affect every stage:

• Building community through blogging/social media to generate ideas
• Using openly published papers for literature review
• Sharing proposed methodologies for peer comment
• Collaborating to collect data
• Disseminating through open access publication, shared datasets, Creative Commons licenses
• Improving visibility through repositories, search engine optimization, social media
• Inviting quick feedback
• Using metrics to establish impact

Don't confuse: Qualitative data (interviews, observations) may be less meaningful outside its original context than quantitative data (statistics), but both can be released openly.

🧭 Developing your own moral compass

🧭 Qualities of a "good" open researcher

The excerpt references several frameworks for researcher virtues:

• Pring (2002): Positive interdependence, individual accountability, promoting success, trusting relationships
• Toledo-Pereyra (2012): Interest, motivation, inquisitiveness, commitment, sacrifice, excelling, knowledge, recognition, scholarly approach, integration
• Responsible Conduct report: Honesty, fairness, objectivity, reliability, skepticism, accountability, openness

Note: Openness appears as a distinct scholarly virtue even in non-open-specific contexts—transparency about research processes and findings is a long-standing expectation.

🛠️ Tools for ethical reflection

Two resources mentioned:

1. Framework for the Ethics of Open Education (Farrow, 2016): Combines research ethics principles with philosophical ethics (deontological, consequentialist, virtue approaches) to help clarify ethical significance of activities.

2. OER Research Hub Ethics Manual: Written for an open research project team to facilitate ongoing ethical reflection.

💭 Key assumptions for ethical research

Whether in or outside institutions:

• Researchers have some control over the process and thus responsibility for outcomes (but can't anticipate everything)
• All reasonable efforts must be taken to minimize potential harm
• Responsibilities don't end with the study—ongoing data management is required
• Rules may govern how research is disseminated and with whom it can be shared

⚖️ Tensions and trade-offs

⚖️ Openness vs. privacy

The more raw data is released, the greater the risk to privacy. But as more data is redacted, the reuse value is reduced.

• The dilemma: Impulse to be open can conflict with ethical expectations around privacy.
• Why it's hard: Full implications of being open are often not known until the future.
• What to do: Keep reflecting throughout the research process and into dissemination; make trade-offs explicit in consent forms.

⚖️ Networked technologies create new possibilities

• Digital and open technologies make it much easier to make decisions that affect many people.
• Example reference: "the Facebook example" (mentioned but not detailed in this excerpt).
• Implication: Essential that open researchers understand how to evaluate ethical significance of their work.

🎯 Context sensitivity

• How ethical principles are applied is context-sensitive.
• Important to keep reflecting on how principles inform your work.
• Familiarity with ethical issues and how they're usually dealt with is crucial.
• Sharing experiences with other researchers can be helpful.
• Need to balance "exciting possibilities of 'guerilla research'" with good ethical judgment.

🎓 Practical guidance

🎓 Finding your institution's procedures

• Look for "Institutional Review Board" (IRB) or "ethical review procedure" documents.
• If not affiliated with an institution, find one that might apply in the future or use a nearby institution's guidance.
• Example provided: The Open University Ethics Principles for Research Involving Human Subjects.

🎓 Training resources

• NIH "Protecting Human Research Participants" online training module (USA): Free, ~3 hours, produces completion certificate often required for institutional ethics review.
• Many institutions require this training to receive ethical approval.

🎓 Key takeaway

It's not enough to simply know about good research methods: it's also important to practice them consistently.

Open researchers need to be bound by the same ethical codes as traditional research—or arguably stronger codes, since they lack the same institutional support. Developing your own moral compass is crucial.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Open dissemination—making research results freely available online with minimal copyright restrictions—maximizes research impact and accelerates knowledge advancement, though it requires careful planning of licensing, platforms, and stakeholder engagement.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What open dissemination means: making research results and deliverables available to stakeholders and wider audiences, not just through traditional journals but through blogs, social media, and open repositories.
• Open Access vs. traditional publishing: Open Access means free online availability plus freedom from most copyright constraints, allowing users to read, download, copy, distribute, and reuse without financial or legal barriers.
• Common confusion: "free access" vs. "open access"—true Open Access includes both zero cost and permission to reuse (e.g., through Creative Commons licenses), not just free-to-read.
• Technology's role: social media, blogs, repositories (e.g., Figshare, SlideShare, Twitter) enable informal, continuous sharing beyond formal publications.
• Why it matters: funders increasingly mandate open dissemination; evidence suggests it increases citations and public engagement, though it may also invite distractions.

📖 What is open dissemination?

📖 Formal definition

Dissemination: "the process of making the results and deliverables of a project available to the stakeholders and to a wider audience." (European Union)

• Traditional dissemination = formal journal articles, conference presentations.
• Open dissemination = broader interpretation enabled by technology: blogs, social media posts, datasets, slide decks, videos—all shared openly and continuously.

🔄 How it differs from traditional dissemination

• Traditional: restricted to subscribers or conference attendees; outputs released at project end.
• Open: shared during the research process; accessible to anyone with internet; encourages reuse and collaboration.
• Example: A project shares survey data on Figshare under CC-BY, allowing anyone to download, analyze, and build upon it with attribution.

🔓 Open Access publishing

🔓 What Open Access means

Open Access (Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2012): "free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles… without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself."

• Not just "free to read" but also "free to reuse."
• The only copyright constraint: authors retain control over integrity and the right to be acknowledged and cited.

🎯 Why Open Access matters

• Core rationale: "research can only advance by sharing the results, and the value of an investment in research is only maximized through wide use of its results."
• Publicly funded research should be publicly accessible.
• Many funders now mandate Open Access (e.g., ESRC requires data archiving within three months of grant end; US federal policy requires free access within one year).

🧭 Choosing an Open Access journal

• "How Open Is It?" guide helps assess journal openness.
• Directory of Open Access Journals lists fully open journals.
• Article Processing Charges (APCs): many Open Access publishers charge fees to offset peer review, production, and hosting costs—budget accordingly.

⚖️ Benefits and challenges

⚖️ Benefits of open dissemination

Stakeholder	Benefit
Researchers (authors)	Immediate visibility, increased citations and impact
Researchers (readers)	Access from anywhere, not just campus networks
Funding agencies	Higher return on investment, greater visibility
Universities & institutes	Enhanced reputation, clearer management information
Libraries	Broader access for users, more sustainable financial model
Teachers & students	Unrestricted learning materials, equality across rich and poor institutions
Science	Accelerated research cycle
Citizens & society	Access to publicly funded research results
Enterprises	Access to critical information
Publishers	Transparent business model, maximum article visibility

• Additional benefits from practice:
  • "Working in the open potentially ensures more careful outputs."
  • Builds live, collaborative networks.
  • Connects with stakeholders who feel invested.
  • Increases public engagement and relevance.

⚠️ Challenges and limitations

Challenge	Description
Researcher burden	Maximizing dissemination and impact requires effort
Access gaps	Not all readers have access to the full literature corpus
Integration complexity	Creating a continuum from raw data to peer-reviewed publications
IP and copyright	Complexities of intellectual property rights
Restrictive licenses	Some licenses limit reuse
Library budgets	Disproportionate spending on journal subscriptions (especially STM fields)
Publisher concentration	Small number of commercial publishers control significant scholarly output
Archiving uncertainty	Reluctance to cancel print until electronic archiving is secure
Distraction risk	"So much interest to deal with that [a project] had to formalize and somewhat restrict what had been an open door policy"

📊 Evidence of impact

• A 2016 PLOS One study (Niyazov et al.) found that Open Access publishing improves citation counts.
• Don't confuse: more citations ≠ guaranteed; context and field norms matter.

🛠️ Tools and practices

🛠️ Technology supporting open dissemination

The excerpt highlights several examples:

1. Stephen Downes: curates educational technology blogs, publishes daily/weekly digests.
2. True Stories of Open Sharing (Alan Levine): shares personal stories enabled by open licenses and networks.
3. ORCID: permanent researcher identifiers facilitate attribution and tracking.

🧰 Platform selection considerations

When choosing dissemination tools (Twitter, blogs, Flickr, SlideShare, Figshare, etc.), consider:

• Audience access: Does your community have reliable internet? Are they active on specific platforms?
• Field norms: "Flickr would be entirely inappropriate [for science], mostly because my audience isn't there… Figshare is pretty awesome, partially because you do get a DOI for your work, which makes it citable."
• Metadata support: Ensure the platform supports the metadata your field expects.
• Integration: Blogs can embed videos, slides, tweets—serving as a repository for diverse outputs.

📝 Example: OER Research Hub approach

The project deliberately:

• Created identity on Twitter, Scoop.It, YouTube, SlideShare.
• Made the blog the core project identity.
• Shared progress, outputs, and methods regularly.
• Used an OER Impact Map to encourage community contribution.
• Shared data openly (survey results).
• Released methodology and instruments under CC-BY.

🏷️ Open licensing with Creative Commons

🏷️ What Creative Commons licenses do

Purpose: Retain copyright ownership while explicitly showing content is "open" and can be reused in specific ways.

The six main license elements:

• BY (Attribution): Must credit the creator.
• SA (ShareAlike): Adaptations must use the same license.
• ND (NoDerivatives): No adaptations allowed.
• NC (NonCommercial): No commercial use.

🔗 Common license combinations

• CC BY: Most permissive—reuse allowed for any purpose with attribution.
• CC BY-SA: Reuse with attribution, must share adaptations under same terms.
• CC BY-NC: Reuse with attribution, non-commercial only.
• CC BY-ND: Reuse with attribution, no modifications.

Example from the excerpt:

• An image released under CC BY-SA can be cropped (adapted) and reused commercially, as long as it's attributed and the adaptation is shared under the same license.
• OER Research Hub survey data on Figshare uses CC BY: anyone can download, add data, re-analyze—just cite the Hub.

🤔 Choosing the right license

Context matters:

• For researchers/data: "I'd tend towards the least restrictive license I can get away with given institutional and publication guidelines… it looks like it's possible in many cases to go straight for CC-BY."
• For artists: More restrictive licenses (e.g., NC, ND) may protect against unauthorized commercial use.
• For mixed practice: "I'm still confused about what might be research which could be openly available to others, and what is my core work and creative capital."

Don't confuse:

• CC licenses apply to creative works; for databases and data, consult Creative Commons wiki guidelines for appropriate licensing.

---

Key takeaway: Open dissemination is not just about making outputs free—it's about enabling reuse, building networks, and maximizing research impact through deliberate platform choices and clear licensing.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Reflecting openly in research—through blogging, videos, or other public formats—allows researchers to evaluate their progress, invite feedback, and build scholarly communities, though it requires balancing transparency with personal comfort and potential risks.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What open reflection means: making the ongoing evaluation of your research process public, not just final results.
• Why researchers reflect openly: to invite community feedback, develop skills collaboratively, establish dialogue, and document thinking in progress.
• How to reflect openly: blogging is common, but researchers also use videos, tweets, visual diaries, photo journals, and sketch notes.
• Common confusion: reflection is not only an end-of-project activity—it should happen continuously throughout the research process and can involve collaborators, not just solo work.
• The trade-off: open sharing builds community and improves work, but researchers must weigh concerns about misunderstanding, misuse, or exposing private thoughts too much.

🔍 What reflection in research means

🔍 Reflection as constant activity

• The excerpt notes that reflection happens constantly but often remains "elusive"—we think about what's happening, how we feel, how we react, and next steps.
• In research, these thoughts are recorded as a way of evaluating progress.
• Don't confuse: reflection is not a one-time summary; it is an ongoing process of sense-making.

🔗 Reflection and evaluation are linked

Reflection in research is closely linked to evaluation: it is about making sense of what we have done, what we are doing and how we are going to evolve.

• The excerpt frames reflection as both backward-looking (what we have done) and forward-looking (how we are going to evolve).
• Open reflection asks: what do we gain or lose when we share this evaluation publicly?

📝 Blogging as a tool for open reflection

📝 Why researchers blog

The excerpt presents two blog examples (Catherine Cronin and Megan Beckett) and asks readers to consider why they blog and whether they achieve their goals.

Participant commentary identifies two purposes:

Blogger	Purpose	Focus
Catherine Cronin	Establish a starting point for PhD work in the open; invite community to take part in her thoughts	Project-focused; already has a scholarly community (evident from comments)
Megan Beckett	Seek a platform to share ideas; try out a voice; develop research skills	More essayistic; contributing to a shared scientific community that co-develops skills

• Both are engaging in open research by discussing their roles or methodologies and inviting commentary and critique.
• Example: Catherine shares initial thinking about her research, allowing for the possibility of feedback from interested scholars.

🤔 Comfort and concerns

The excerpt includes participant reflections on comfort with open sharing:

• Broadcasting risk: "Online sharing is like broadcasting, and as the internet takes your words anywhere, they might also be misunderstood or misused."
• One participant prefers not to expose private thoughts too much; another feels they need more experience before sharing openly.
• Attribution vs. theft: One participant notes that blogs are licensed and ideas are expected to be attributed in research communities today, though acknowledges this may be a "naive point of view."

📚 Other blog examples

The excerpt lists additional blog purposes:

• Sharing book chapters ahead of publication (an 'open approach' to writing a book)
• Discussing rewards and challenges of having ideas "out there"
• Publishing impact funding statements and inviting feedback to demonstrate pathways to impact

⏰ When and who: timing and collaboration

⏰ When should reflection happen?

• The excerpt asks: "Is the value of reflection only important at the end of a project?"
• It references Leigh-Anne Perryman answering this question (video content not transcribed in the excerpt).
• The implication: reflection should not be limited to project endpoints; it is valuable throughout.

👥 Who is involved?

• The excerpt asks: "Do we have to reflect in isolation? Can reflection also be collaboration?"
• It references Leigh-Anne Perryman answering "Who should be involved in doing open reflection?" (video content not transcribed).
• The framing suggests that open reflection can and should involve others, not just the individual researcher.

📐 Structured vs. unstructured

• The excerpt asks: "How important is it to reflect in a structured manner?"
• This question is posed but not directly answered in the provided text, suggesting it is explored in the referenced videos.

🛠️ Tools and formats for open reflection

🛠️ Beyond blogging

The excerpt emphasizes that reflection doesn't require long written pieces:

You can record a video or audio podcast, publish a series of tweets, draw some pictures, keep a photo journal, etc.

Examples of different formats:

Format	Example from excerpt
Visual diary	Chrissi Nerantzi uses a visual diary to rework her PhD Literature Review
Tweet collection	Diana Samson uses Storify to collect tweets (MOOC learning reflections)
Video	Susan Spellman Cann videos her reflections on becoming an open educator
Photo journal	Wells for Zoë (humanitarian organization) keeps a photo journal
Sketch notes	Beck Pitt sketch notes a plenary talk
Illustrated guide	Matt Might uses pictures to describe what a PhD is

• The variety shows that researchers can choose formats that suit their strengths and comfort levels.
• Example: A researcher uncomfortable with long written posts might prefer recording short videos or creating visual summaries.

🔄 Reflecting on your own practice

🔄 Self-assessment questions

The excerpt invites readers to reflect on their own openness:

• How open were you before working through these materials?
• What parts of your research, if any, did you share openly?
• What works well for you about doing open research?
• What might not work so well for you?
• What are you going to do to be a (more) open researcher in the future?
• How are you going to change your practice?

🔄 A shift in perspective

The excerpt includes a participant quote:

"I remember that I never wanted people to know exactly what I was doing especially my classmates for fearing that they could copy my work… but coming to think about it… I should have shared my insights."

• This illustrates a common initial resistance (fear of copying) and a later realization of the value of sharing.
• Don't confuse: sharing insights is not the same as giving away competitive advantage; it can build community and improve the work itself.

🎨 Be creative

The excerpt encourages creativity in both the tool used and who you reflect with:

If you'd like, be creative about the tool you use and about who you do your reflection with.

• Reflection can be collaborative, not just individual.
• The format should match your preferences and goals.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

The textbook authors invite readers to stay connected, contribute feedback, and share their open research experiences to help improve the material and build a community of practice.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What this chapter offers: contact information and ways to connect with the authors and the open research community.
• Invitation to feedback: the authors want to hear how readers used the material and ideas for extending it.
• Community resources: links to networks (OER Hub, GO-GN, OER World Map) for ongoing engagement.
• Reflection prompt: a quote from a researcher who regrets not sharing insights earlier, highlighting the value of openness.

📬 Ways to connect

📧 Direct contact

• Email: oer-research-hub@open.ac.uk
• Website: OER Hub
• Twitter: @OER_Hub with hashtag #openresearch

🌐 Community networks

The excerpt lists three community resources:

Resource	Purpose
OER Hub	Main project website
Global OER Graduate Network (GO-GN)	Network for graduate students interested in open education
OER World Map	Project to map open education activity worldwide

Why join: these platforms help build a picture of open education activity and connect practitioners globally.

💬 What the authors want to hear

💡 Feedback areas

The authors explicitly ask readers to share:

• How you utilized the material
• Your thoughts and ideas for extending the material
• Your ideas for improving it

Purpose: the textbook itself is open, so reader contributions can shape future versions and help others learn from diverse experiences.

🔄 Reflection on sharing

🔄 A researcher's regret

The excerpt closes with a quote from a researcher:

"I remember that I never wanted people to know exactly what I was doing especially my classmates for fearing that they could copy my work… but coming to think about it… I should have shared my insights."

Key lesson: the fear of others copying work can prevent valuable knowledge sharing; in hindsight, openness would have been more beneficial.

Don't confuse: protecting your work vs. sharing insights—openness doesn't mean giving away unfinished work without attribution, but it does mean contributing to collective learning once you reflect on what you've learned.

📚 Appendix note

📚 What follows

The excerpt mentions an appendix containing transcripts titled "Open Research 1.3: What does open research mean to others?" and other sections with researcher reflections.

Content: interviews with researchers (Chris Pegler, Patrick McAndrew, Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams, Martin Weller, Leigh-Anne Perryman, Tita Beaven) discussing:

• Differences between open and traditional research
• Where open has made a difference to their practice
• Disadvantages of open research
• The role of reflection in research
• Conducting research in the open
• Who should be involved in reflection
• When reflection should happen

Note: the excerpt provides only the chapter heading and partial transcript introductions; the full interviews are referenced but not included in this excerpt.