Data as Social Capital and the Gift Culture in Research

Abstract

The value of making research data available is broadly accepted. Policies concerning the open access to research data try to implement new norms calling for researchers to make their data more openly available. These policies either appeal to the common good or focus on publication and citation as an incentive to bring about a cultural change in how researchers share their data with their peers. But when we compare the total number of publications in the fields of science, technology and medicine with the number data publications from the same time period, the number of openly available datasets is rather small. This indicates that current policies on data sharing are not effective in changing behaviours and bringing about the wanted cultural change. By looking at research communities that are more open to data sharing we can study the social patterns that influence data sharing and point us to possible points for intervention and change.

Sociotechnical Obstacles to Archaeological Data Reuse

“…In order to characterize the rarity of data reuse, it is worthwhile to review current data sharing and reuse practices (Borgman 2012; Faniel, Kriesberg, and Yakel 2012; Klump 2017; Shen 2016). A recent survey by Shen (2016) explores the perceived and actual barriers to data sharing and reuse and validates researchers’ perceptions of data value and reusability with their practice of data sharing and reuse.…”

“…The similarity between Shen's findings and results emerging from RIN and other sources indicate that archaeologists, despite their attitudes, share and reuse data within a limited scope. A number of factors contribute to this situation: from the low velocity of data acquisition (Borgman 2012) to the closed nature of research communities (Klump 2017:2–3). This article focuses on the costs and obstacles to archaeological data reuse.…”

“…Shen (2016) and Faniel, Kriesberg, and Yakel (2012) articulate additional limiting factors such as institutional policies and the lack of standards, time, and funding. Klump (2017) points to varied cultures of sharing among disciplines, which may cancel out even generational change. “Generation Y” doctoral students who behaved as “digital natives” in their private lives have reported following the behaviors of their role model supervisors in academic life (Education for Change 2012).…”

Data Reuse and the Social Capital of Open Science

“…One concrete example of this is an increase in citations for publications that make their data open [19]. In particular, professional credit can be thought of as social capital, and plays a role in the utility of sharing data [20]. This includes (but is not limited to): recognition by tenure and promotion committees, normative recognition of Altmetric milestones [21], and an increased recognition of reanalysis and replication studies as a valid form of scientific discovery [22].…”

“…This suggests policy is helpful but not sufficient for encouraging data sharing. Klump [20] suggests that the cultural phenomenon of gift-giving is crucial to our understanding of how participation in open data sharing communities can be encouraged. Widely observed in more traditional scientific communities [33], gift-giving might consist of exchanging information for recognition, and exemplified through citation or co-authorship.…”