Relations between open science and public science communication: An empirical study coming from the natural sciences
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Purpose. This study examines the relationship between open science (OS) and public science communication (PSC) .
Methodology. Using a qualitative content analysis (QCA) with 29 semi-directed interviews with natural science researchers in Brazil, France, and Peru.
Findings. While some researchers see no direct connection due to the conceptualization of PSC as the end of research, this contrasts with open science’s focus on the process of doing science. Others recognize the potential of open science to enhance public engagement with science. However, despite the recognized benefits, challenges persist in effectively communicating complex scientific concepts to non-expert audiences. Researchers generally view PSC positively, although it is often perceived as time-consuming. A significant barrier is the scientific language.
Value. This perspective reinforces the persistence of the popularization model in science communication across the countries. The results could inform future open science policies, moving beyond the traditional deficit model.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
(c) Alejandra Manco, 2025
Copyright
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Alejandra Manco, Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1, ELICO
Alejandra Manco is Ph.D. candidate in information and communication science at Lyon 1 University, part of the research team ELICO (EA 4147). Master in digital media at Uppsala University. Ph.D. thesis on open science policies’ effects on basic sciences researcher’s career. Interested in open science, collaboration practices, knowledge production, qualitative research, and science communication. Professional experience as an editor and consultant in information and knowledge management in international organizations.
Abadal, E. & Anglada, L. (2020). Ciencia abierta: cómo han evolucionado la denominación y el concepto. Anales de Documentación, 23(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesdoc.378171
Albornoz, D., Okune, A. & Chan, L. (2020). Can Open Scholarly Practices Redress Epistemic Injustice? In M.P. Eve and J. Gray (eds.), Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, (pp. 65-79). MIT Press.
Arboledas-Lérida, L. (2023). Science Communication, Competitive Project-Based Funding and the Formal Subsumption of Academic Labor Under Capital. In R. Hall, I. Accioly, and K. Szadkowski (eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Marxism and Education, (pp. 201-222). Palgrave Macmillan.
Azagra-Caro, J.M., Benito-Amat, C. & Planells-Aleixandre, E. (2022). Academic artists’ engagement and commercialisation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(4), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09940-2
Azagra-Caro, J.M. & Pavone, V. (2024). The effect of scientific impact on science communication through art from the lens of deviance theories. Journal of Science Communication, 23(6), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23060202
Babini, D. & Rovelli, L. (2020) Tendencias Recientes en las Políticas Científicas de Ciencia Abierta y Acceso Abierto en Iberoamérica. CLACSO. https://www.clacso.org/tendencias-recientes-en-las-politicas-cientificas-de-ciencia-abierta-y-acceso-abierto-en-iberoamerica
Bauer, M.W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of Science-discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202
Benaquisto, L. (2008). Codes and Coding. In L.M. Given (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, (pp. 86-89). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n48
Bertin, P.R.B., Fortaleza, J.M., da Silva, A.C. & Okawachi, M.F. (2019). The Open Government partnership as a platform for the advancement of Open Science in Brazil. Transinformacao, (31). https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889201931e190020
Besley, J.C., Oh, S.H. & Nisbet, M. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315
Bodin, C. (2023). La mise en récit du monde social par la vulgarisation, entre logiques d’appropriation triviales et sociodicée. Communication & langages, 214(4), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.3917/comla1.214.0111
Boon, W., de Haan, J., Duisterwinkel, C., Gould, L., Janssen, W., Jongsma, K., Milota, M., Radstake, M., Stevens, S., Strick, M., Swinkels, M., van Mil, M., van Sebille, E., Wanders, N. & Yerkes, M. (2022). Meaningful public engagement in the context of open science: reflections from early and mid-career academics. Research for All, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.06.1.23
Brasil, A. & Trevisol, J.V. (2025). Research evaluation in Brazil and the Netherlands: A comparative study. Research Evaluation, 34, rvaf013, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf013
Brownell, S.E., Price, J. V. & Steinman, L. (2013). Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6-E10 (1). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24319399/
Bucchi, M. & Trench, B. (2016). Science Communication and Science in Society: A Conceptual Review in Ten Keywords. TECNOSCIENZA Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 7(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17333
Burgelman, J.C., Pascu, C., Szkuta, K., Von Schomberg, R., Karalopoulos, A., Repanas, K. & Schouppe, M. (2019). Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century. Frontiers in Big Data, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043
Campos, A. (2022). Comunicación efectiva de la ciencia: ¿qué es y cómo ayuda a los científicos a mejorar su carrera y cumplir objetivos de impacto social? Revisión de la literatura. Hipertext.net, (24), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2022.i24.03
Chataway, J., Parks, S. & Smith, E. (2017). How will open science impact on university-industry collaboration? Foresight and STI Governance, 11(2), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.44.53
Coletti, A., McGloin, R., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. & Hamlin, E. (2022). Science Communication on Social Media: Examining Cross-Platform Behavioral Engagement. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 11(2), 236–263. https://thejsms.org/index.php/JSMS/article/view/995
Da Costa, M.P. & Leite, F.C.L. (2016). Open access in the world and Latin America: A review since the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Transinformacao, 28(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892016002800003
Couto Corrêa da Silva, F. (2023). Acceso Abierto a la producción científica en América Latina: iniciativas, desafíos e impactos. Hipertext.net, (27), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2023.i27.08
Davies, S.R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
Davies, S.R. & Holmer, C. (2024). Care, collaboration, and service in academic data work: biocuration as “academia otherwise”. Information Communication and Society, 27(4), 683–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2315285
Dhakal, K. (2022). NVivo. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 110(2), 270–272. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1271
Eldh, A.C., Årestedt, L. & Berterö, C. (2020). Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920969268.
European Commission (2025). EU Grants: HE Programme Guide. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/programme-guide_horizon_en.pdf (Accessed: October 20th, 2025).
Fecher, B. & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In Opening Science, (pp. 17-47). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
De Filippo, D. & D’Onofrio, M.G. (2019). Alcances y limitaciones de la ciencia abierta en Latinoamérica: análisis de las políticas públicas y publicaciones científicas de la región. Hipertext.net, (19), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2019.i19.03
Fischer, A. (2022). Évaluation de la recherche et publications scientifiques : quantité ou qualité? Bulletin de l’Academie Nationale de Medecine, 206(7), 898–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.banm.2022.04.021
Fressoli, M. & Arza, V. (2017). Negociando la apertura en ciencia abierta. Un análisis de casos ejemplares en Argentina. Revista CTS, 36(12), 139–162. https://ojs.revistacts.net/index.php/CTS/article/view/39/38
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. & Hamilton, A.L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Grand, A., Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K. & Winfield, A. F. T. (2012). Open Science: A New “Trust Technology”? Science Communication, 34(5), 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012443021
Gunnell, J., Golumbic, Y., Hayes, T. & Cooper, M. (2021). Co-created citizen science: Challenging cultures and practice in scientific research. Journal of Science Communication, 20(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20050401
Hecker, S., Haklay, M.E., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J. & Bonn, A. (eds).(2018). Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy, Citzen Science. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339
Horst, M. (2013). A Field of Expertise, the Organization, or Science Itself? Scientists’ Perception of Representing Research in Public Communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013487513
Jensen, E.A. & Gerber, A. (2019). Evidence-Based Science Communication. Frontiers in Communication, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00078
Knoche, M. (2020). Science communication and open access: The critique of the political economy of capitalist academic publishers as ideology critique. TripleC, 18(2), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.36730/ideologiekritik.2019.8
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.
Lakomý, M., Hlavová, R. & Machackova, H. (2019). Open Science and the Science-Society Relationship. Society, 56(3), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-019-00361-w
Leonelli, S. (2023) Philosophy of Open Science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009416368
Levin, N. & Leonelli, S. (2017). How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research. Science Technology and Human Values, 42(2), 280–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916672071
Locke, K., Feldman, M. & Golden-Biddle, K. (2022). Coding Practices and Iterativity: Beyond Templates for Analyzing Qualitative Data. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 262–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120948600
Manco, A. (2023). Prácticas de ciencia abierta vistas desde la perspectiva de las comunidades de investigadores de las ciencias básicas de Perú. Revista Científica, 48(3), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.14483/23448350.20905
Manco, A. (2024). Open science policies as regarded by the communities of researchers from the basic sciences in the scientific periphery. Online Information Review , 48(6). https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2023-0135
Metag, J. (2021). Tension Between Visibility and Invisibility: Science Communication in New Information Environments. Studies in Communication Sciences, 21(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.24434/J.SCOMS.2021.01.009
Millones-Gómez, P.A., Yangali-Vicente,J.S., Arispe-Alburqueque,C.M., Rivera-Lozada,O., Calla-Vásquez,K.M., Calla-Poma,R.D., Requena-Mendizábal,M.F. & Minchón-Medina, C.A. (2021). Research policies and scientific production: A study of 94 Peruvian universities. PLoS ONE, 16(5), e0252410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252410
Nerghes, A., Mulder, B. & Lee, J.S. (2022). Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists’ definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands. PLoS ONE, 17(12), e0277677. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277677
Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
Oliveira, M., Barata, G., Fleerackers, A., Alperin, J. P., Falade, B. & Bauer, M.W. (2024). Bridging science communication and open science—Working inclusively toward the common good. Frontiers in Communication, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1473268
Palma-Peña, J.M. (2023). Políticas para datos abiertos en América Latina: análisis y desafíos. Hipertext.net, (27), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2023.i27.06
Peters, H.P. (2022). The role of organizations in the public communication of science – Early research, recent studies, and open questions. Studies in Communication Sciences, 22(3), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2022.03.3994
Ragnedda, M. & Ruiu, M.L. (2020). Operationalising Digital Capital. In Digital Capital: A Bourdieusian Perspective on the Digital Divide, (pp. 39-65). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Reincke, C.M., Bredenoord, A.L. & van Mil, M.H. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication. EMBO reports, 21(9). https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051278
Rigney, D. (2010). The Matthew effect: How advantage begets further advantage. Columbia University Press.
Roche, J., Jensen, E.A., Jensen, A.M., Bell, L., Hurley, M., Taylor, A., Boissenin, C., Chase, J., Cherouvis, S., Dunne, K., Kashmina, J., Massarani, L., Planchard, J., Russo, P. & Smyth, F. (2023). Bridging citizen science and science communication: insights from a global study of science communicators. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1259422.
Rosman, T., Bosnjak, M., Silber, H., Koßmann, J., & Heycke, T. (2022). Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science, 31(8), 1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221100686
Saldana, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications.
Schöpfel, J. & Fabre, R. (2019). La question des revues dans la science ouverte : une approche fonctionnelle. I2D - Information, données & documents, 2, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3917/i2d.192.0109
Siccama, C.J. & Penna, S. (2008). Enhancing Validity of a Qualitative Dissertation Research Study by Using NVIVO. Qualitative Research Journal, 8(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0802091
Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
UNESCO (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Paris. https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science/about
Vignoli, M. & Rörden, J. (2019). Why we need open science communication experts. VOEB-Mitteilungen, 72(2), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.31263/voebm.v72i2.3049
Wagenknecht, K., Woods, T., Nold, C., Rüfenacht, S., Voigt-Heucke, S., Caplan, A., Hecker, S. & Vohland, K. (2021). A Question of Dialogue? Reflections on how Citizen Science can Enhance Communication Between Science and Society. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030213
Weingart, P., Joubert, M. & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLoS ONE, 16(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254201
Wilbers, S. & Brankovic, J. (2021). The emergence of university rankings: a historicalsociological account. Higher Education [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00776-7