To solve many of the world’s most pressing problems, open access advocates believe knowledge needs to be shared widely. Those who support publicly engaged or community-engaged research emphasize the benefit of science being broadly accessible and informed by the contributions of multiple partners and/or interest holders to amplify impact.
With such similar goals, there is potential for these efforts to gain greater traction by working together – especially at a time when higher education administrators are facing increased budget pressures.
Change is more likely to happen when there is collaboration and an ecosystem approach among those championing open scholarship, community engagement, responsible research assessment and public impact, said Benjamin Olneck-Brown, an officer with the Evidence Project in the Scientific Advancement Division at The Pew Charitable Trusts. He works closely with groups of funders and academic leaders to strategize on reforming policies to make research more accessible and useful.
That means aligning messages to promote a system that is both more open and more impactful. “A rising tide can lift all boats,” he said. “There’s an opportunity to find common ground and come together around a shared vision. And it’s always better to come to a provost with one ask, rather than a series of asks.”
Pew coordinates the Impact Funders Forum, a group of more than 80 research funders across disciplines and geographies united around closing the gap between research and outcomes, as well as the Presidents and Chancellors Council on Public Impact Research, which includes higher education leaders in North America looking at infrastructure and incentives to drive positive public impact in their communities. The groups have grown significantly in recent years, he said, as leaders want to demonstrate the public value of research investments and ensure the greatest impact possible.
The overlapping interests between the open scholarship movement and public engagement leaders are apparent in issues of access and outcomes.
Publicly engaged scholarship centers on people outside the academy being able to work in knowledge creation, Olneck-Brown said, so it’s much more difficult when material is paywalled. “Open scholarship enables more effective partnerships so participants can come to the table with the same information,” he said. In the other direction, there is a desire to count outputs beyond journal articles (written policy briefs, contributions, etc.) in evaluation and assessment.
“There’s been a real move over the last 15 to 20 years towards innovation in how research is conducted and funded,” Olneck-Brown said. “The younger generation of researchers is interested in doing more public-facing work, more cross-sector partnerships, and more interdisciplinary work. They don’t want to just have their publications tallied. In the face of all of these big changes, funders, institutional and higher ed leaders are asking, “How do we meet the moment?’”
In recent years, scholars have increasingly embraced science communication and engagement, said Elyse Aurbach-Pruitt, a neuroscientist who is a leading voice in public engagement scholarship and practice.
“There’s much more of a drive and hunger to do societally impactful work, to do community engaged work that has meaningful, real-world impact,” said Aurbach-Pruitt, assistant provost for university outreach and engagement at Michigan State University. “People are looking around at the world and seeing so many challenges they want to solve. They want their education for public good.”
Looking at the intersection of open scholarship and public engagement, Aurbach-Pruitt noted that many core ideas are similar.
“As it relates to high-level investments, high-level policy changes, it makes more sense for us to travel together than it does for us to carve out a space for open science, and then also carve out a space for public and community engagement,” she said. “In principle, open and engaged oriented work are both about increasing access and increasing impact.”
Aurbach-Pruitt, who has consulted on strategy with Pew’s Impact Funders Forum and Presidents and Chancellors Council, has developed a framework for Modernizing Scholarship for the Public Good. Her research with the Association of Public Land-Grant Universities (APLU) outlines eight areas for strategic action that universities can take to support publicly-engaged and publicly impactful research to benefit society.
Aurbach-Pruitt recommends developing committed institutional leaders. While the university librarian might have a deep knowledge in “open” and the chief engagement officer knows all about engagement, they should also be conversant in each other’s area of expertise and recognize their shared principles. “That’s the level of messaging that’s going to be common and resonant at the provost level,” she said.
When it comes to reforming appointment, retention, tenure, and promotion practices, Aurbach-Pruitt suggests that the university librarian and the chief engagement officer should work hand in hand with others in academic affairs, the office of research, innovation and entrepreneurship. She also recommends the leaders maintain direct and regular lines of communication.
Investing in institutional structures and networks in this shared space could mean working together on alternative metrics to include societal impact, Aurbach-Pruitt said. “That’s a point of unification for librarians and chief engagement officers,” she said.
There is potential for administrators focused on open and impact to work together to launch catalytic funding programs and merge award recognition programs for greater visibility, Aurbach-Pruitt said. Also, there could be shared benefits of combining professional development and training opportunities that explore the benefits of enhancing access and public engagement.
“It’s going to be more effective for us to walk hand in hand than beat the drum separately,” she said. “Especially right now, there is more that unites us than divides us. If we can try and recognize this moment for what it is, which is a moment of forced transformation, then we need to think about what we want the academy to be – and work towards that.”
Added Olneck-Brown: “It’s essential that we sustain the work of public impact research, no matter the broader environment,” he said. “Public impact and public value of research institutions is something that matters to everybody.”