Futures agency in open science and research

The Finnish research community’s Declaration for Open Science and Research 2020–2025, soon to be updated, is committed to supporting the quality of research, societal benefits of opening research, equality and equal possibilities of researchers, and the plurality of research (Declaration for Open Science and Research 2020–2025). Open science and research policies further outline the objectives set in the declaration and are directed to the entire national scientific and research community. Achieving these goals requires a narrative of the future of open science common to different actors (Mediema 2022, 110).

Open Science and Research in Organizational Futures

The essence of the open science and research movement lies in value-based principles. Values are also an integrated part of organizational discussions of possible futures (Conway 2022, 2023). Hence, values are a central driving force when forecasting futures related to open science and research within an organizational context.

However, individual organizations and actors may interpret these values differently. Underlying assumptions and risks also exist that could present hindrances and obstacles to the adoption of open science and research practices. These factors underline the need for a common value-based narrative.

To understand the impact of worldviews on our assumptions, the concept of futures agency is useful. By taking agency, the use of our foresight becomes conscious at present. “It is a stance we can take, one with conscious foresight at its core, our futures literacy skills developing, and with our responsibility for futures generation accepted and at the core of our decisions.” (Conway 2023, 26)

Perceived Risks and the Futures Conversations Framework

In the Spring of 2022, the Finnish Open Science coordination specialist community conducted a risk analysis on the potential sources of roadblocks to the national progress of open science and research (Karlsson 2022; Mustajoki 2022). The fears that arose in the analysis, suggestions to overcome them, and potential actions to take at the organizational level could be arranged thematically. A promising approach to support thematical analysis is the Futures Conversations Framework recently developed by foresight and strategy consultant Maree Conway (2022, 2023), who has researched the driving forces leading to different possible futures of universities (2020).

The Futures Conversations Framework is a constructive model for bringing forth unrevealed themes. The framework rests on the idea of foresight capacities being tied to our worldviews – our descriptions of “what is and what ought to be” (Conway 2023, 19). As individuals, we need to be futures aware and, as organizations, futures-oriented (Conway 2023, 22–23).

Hidden presumptions and worldviews, both on the individual level and framing the organizational culture, can be pinpointed, and challenged with the aid of the four spaces in the framework. Further, it forms a basis for multiple levels of informed conversations aiming to develop and deepen shared values and consider emotions, which often emerge as our worldviews are challenged. (Conway 2022, 2023)

Accordingly, the Futures Conversations Framework can provide insight into the themes arising from the risk analysis within the context of scientific and research organizations, as was shown in my study, where I tested the framework by applying it to the risk analysis data within the context of a university of applied sciences (Suojärvi 2023). As a result, it was evident that the framework is integrative by nature and productive as such. Nevertheless, it still needs to be complemented with other methods suggested by Conway herself to gain a sufficient understanding of underlying values in juxtaposition to foreseen risks, and tools for putting foresight into practice. (Conway 2022; Suojärvi 2023)

Examples of themes to Consider within the Futures Conversations Framework

The Futures Conversations Framework includes four spaces, namely Self: Futures thought related to individual foresight, Culture: Futures Signified related to collective foresight, Change: Futures Explored related to external context, and Futures: Futures Manifested related to internal context. We start with self-reflection, asking ourselves why we think about the futures as we do. Integrated with these thoughts are collective organizational discussions about tacit beliefs of futures. These conversations are intertwined with the assumption set of external changes and responses to them within the organization, in this case, the University of Applied Sciences. Finally, the fourth integral conversation space seeks assumptions about futures present in, for instance, strategic plans or surveys held within the organization. (Conway 2023, 24–25)

Themes related to the building of individual foresight arising from the risk analysis data and report (Riskianalyysiraportti) are, in short, attitudes towards the policies of open science and research; foresight capabilities related to research culture; operational responsibility; prioritization of practices concerning personal interest; attitude towards technology; interpretation of regulations; fear of mistakes; information retrieval skills; conflicting attitudes towards business cooperation; and awareness of the services available.

An example of the types of risks that arose within these themes, potentially present in universities of applied sciences, is the insufficient or uneven distribution of resources affecting publishing, data management, and the support services advancing it, as well as the development of open study materials and courses, and possibly also cooperation between organizations. Considering the culture of open scholarship, individual foresight can be affected by obstacles in integrating the opening of data and data management methods to research work, prejudices regarding the utilization of open study material and practices, or principles of open science and research remaining an isolated concept. (Riskianalyysiraportti; Suojärvi 2023.)

Based on the results of the risk analysis, assumptions possibly affecting the building of culture-related collective foresight are prevailing attitudes at the organizational level; motivation dependent on organizational emphasis; accessibility and reliability of support services, functions, and infrastructures; and organization-specific policies and operating models. For instance, an organization’s attitudes towards open publishing can vary according to the publishing culture and forms and the type of open publishing encouraged. Incentives promoting quantity rather than quality may have a negative impact on the motivation to build and maintain a plurality of high-quality open study materials and courses. Also, for example, unclear organizational policies can prevent recognizing and acknowledging good open learning practices. (Riskianalyysiraportti; Suojärvi 2023.)

When mapping the change-related external context shaping organizational futures, the themes that can be singled out from the risk analysis are decisions and measures. At the organizational level, it is possible to identify change effects that participation in the measures can have, for example, in terms of the preservation and usability of Finnish publications, responsible research evaluation, open publishing, science communication, data management, opening learning and learning materials, and competence development. (Riskianalyysiraportti; Suojärvi 2023.)

The meta-level risk analysis, however, does not include themes related to discerning internal context. The discussions remain a general description of the operating culture without the results of complementary methods or the identification and examination of artifacts. Analysis of artifacts is needed to define how futures are articulated on an organizational level and to find relevant foresight themes (Suojärvi 2023).

The theme of artificial general intelligence is missing from the risk analysis performed in 2022. Its impact on our worldviews, related to open science and research, will likely be manifold. The open science and research movement faces a new era of potential risks present in the possible futures ahead of us, and it is even more evident that we need to find our agency to think and act in new ways and manifest all four spaces of the Futures Conversations Framework.

To conclude

The Futures Conversations Framework is a functional holistic means of bringing out hidden assumptions arising from different worldviews at the individual level and within the culture of a university of applied sciences. Based on the themes explored, the framework can be positively utilized to lay the groundwork for informed discussion, as highlighting problematic areas facilitates the constructive challenging of worldviews. Interactive discussions on the risks at different mutually integrated levels create an open ground for possible change measures and commitment to them. Shared values can be developed and deepened. Regarding an organization’s future-oriented and visible change and future discussions, the risk analysis, however, does not provide sufficient answers and forecasting tools without the complementary methods suggested by Conway. (Conway 2022; Suojärvi 2023)

As the Futures Conversations Framework has proved to be a worthwhile and productive model with meta-level data, it would be intriguing to bring it into the context of a single university of applied sciences with its unique organizational environment. The artifacts naturally missing from the national-level risk analysis would likely give sufficient background information for informed discussions at all levels of the framework. By applying Conway’s (2023, 26) model and thoughts, futures agency could be built effectively, forming the conscious foresight capability of an organization. Challenging our worldviews, both individually and collectively, is crucial for finding agency when navigating the possible futures of open science and research.

LISÄÄ AIHEEN YMPÄRILTÄ / RELATED POSTS