Assess which practices would the most feasible and effective to focus on. Mark a large section of a wall windows or pinboards can also be used with the different phases of the research cycle e.
Ask participants to select practices they feel are really important for open science, and hang them on the wall, grouped by research phase. Encourage people to add research practices that are not included in the cards. Divide participants in seven groups. Each group looks at the selected practices for one research phase, and chooses the two practices that they feel are most feasible to implement and most effective to make research more open. Either move these cards higher up on the wall, or remove the other cards.
The small groups explain their choice to all participants. Together, the selected research practices can form a blueprint of an open science workflow. As a follow-up exercise, participants can discuss possible steps to implement these practices:. Large wall, windows, or multiple pinboards to hang materials on.
Enough room to move around. Printed cards with open science practices also available as editable powerpoint slides or in a Google spreadsheet. Pins or tape. None, some familiarity with the research process is helpful.
CRC Handbook of Materials Science, Volume II: Material Composites and Refractory Materials
Depending on the number of participants, small groups can prioritize practices for more than one research phase. Decide beforehand whether to stick with the choices made, or whether there is room for discussion and consensus-based swapping of practices. Other selection criteria could be used, e. Small groups, 20—30 minutes. Confront own experiences and opinions on open science with perspectives from others. Divide participants in groups of four or five and distribute discussion topics e.
Suggestions for discussion topics:. Printouts of discussion topics. Some familiarity with the research system.
Table of Contents
This exercise is best suited to researchers rather than support people , because they can directly relate to their own situation and speak from their own experience. By changing the discussion statements, this exercise can be adapted to other topics. Have knowledge of different aspects of open science.
Connect different stakeholders to discuss statements and topics. The set-up: people gather around a table with 1 moderator and 1 note taker. To initiate conversations, they are provided with a deck of cards with statements and questions related to open science and the involved projects. These statements serve as conversation starters. Someone can pick a card, the group talks about it for some time, and then they can move on to the next card.
In this way, people learn from each other and start to think about the bigger picture. Meanwhile, you can collect valuable input from different stakeholders. The note taker: collects interesting points of the conversation in two different ways:. The mindmap cards: You can use these cards for topics that get a lot of attention in the conversation.
Write down the main topic in the centre, and work from there.
Is it hard to find connections? You can also collect random thoughts and statements here. You only have one, so here you have to be very selective. Make a point of it if you think something is so good that it deserves to go on this card. After minutes, have the group change tables. Moderators and note takers remain seated. At the end, each moderator reports on what has been said by the different groups at their table. Format, time needed:. Learning objectives:. Know their own research data and data in their field of research. Exercise description:.
Was there supplementary material e. Let them write down examples and types of research data in their field of work. What information or data would they need in order to reanalyze the study? Materials and tools needed:. A piece of paper and a pen. Level of prior knowledge needed:.
No prior knowledge needed. Things to bear in mind:. Give the participants enough time to brainstorm. How to adapt for other purposes:. Get participants thinking about the ethical and practical barriers to data sharing, and to critically examine their beliefs in this area. In pairs or small groups, participants have five minutes to make a list as long as possible of all the reasons why researchers might not wish to share their data.
Participants then report back on their reasons, discussing whether these are valid reasons or not, and strategies for how to overcome legitimate concerns. The team with the most reasons listed wins prize optional. Note taking equipment pen, paper, or online document ; optional: prize.
Working knowledge of working with data. The exercise should be fun, and participants should be encouraged to come up with fun as well as serious examples. The same format could easily be adapted for many other elements of Open Science, e. Group exercise, 20—30 minutes. Being able to recognize stereotypes that prevent sharing research data and understand the advantages of opening research data. This exercise should be used at the beginning of the training event.
Participants split at least in two groups or more depends on the group size. A trainer takes care that one group will develop pro and the other contra arguments. In small groups participants discuss excuses already defined at the "Open Data Excuse" Bingo, these are common arguments used by researchers when explaining why they can't share their data.
For the last 10 minutes the groups should confront their arguments. A trainer helps participants to develop arguments for open their data and to better understand the idea of sharing their data.detualisro.tk
Study materials at Manchester
Go around and try to help with arguments if needed, especially in the group, which supposed to develop strong arguments for sharing data. Extra help might be needed for these participants to be stronger later in the confrontation with participants from the other group. This exercise can be adapted to other topics material would need to be adapted also.
Group exercise, 1—4 hours if done as part of a workshop. Understanding what data is and what type of repository of archive is needed to store them properly. Participants are asked to think about the last scientific work done in relation with a thesis Bachelor, Master, or Ph. They will then create a datagramm, i.
In several steps, all cards are finally clustered on a wall according to the letters format, size, medium, and type. The group discusses the different clusters and reflects about the requirements for an open data repository or archive. Cards and flipcharts, or better a wall and material to fix the cards on the wall. None as long as the exercise is started with some explanations on how to describe and differentiate data. Basic knowledge of research data, repositories, and archives may be helpful. Make it a step by step approach.
Becoming aware of appropriate subject-specific data repositories and their characteristics and standards. The participants have to find a data repository for their research data. They go to re3data. Let them limit their search to data repositories with DOI assignment. Give them time to have a look at the repository description and let them write down relevant repositories. Afterwards their success and experiences are discussed. Computer with internet access for every participant can also be in pairs if necessary. The participants should know which kind of research data they produce.
Not applicable for bachelor students. Group exercise, 5—10 minutes depending on group size.