The open science story of Arjen Wals

What is your view on Open Science?

For me, Open science is about a shift from science for impact factors in exclusive journals to science for impact in society. To get that impact, researchers and the university as a whole need to develop better relationships with actors and stakeholders in our social environment. Open science also implies a certain modesty regarding the status of scientific knowledge. Historically, we, Western thinkers, see scientific knowledge as the highest form of knowledge. We are currently learning to recognize the value of local knowledge and experience.

In that sense, open science requires a different scientific attitude towards society and our stakeholders, an open attitude where we don't just send our information, but also listen to what is going on.

The classic expectation is that scientists come up with all the answers. That’s no longer a good working model - if it ever was - because the problems we study are becoming increasingly complex. WUR's strategic research and education themes are Climate Change, Biodiversity, Feeding the World, Circular Economy and Healthy Food & Living. These issues have no one-size-fits-all solution and our insights are continuously changing. What we think is sustainable now turns out not to be so tomorrow. This doesn’t mean that science or the government can’t be trusted but that we’re on a quest in which scientific knowledge as well as local knowledge and perspectives are important. This quest requires continuous learning for all parties.

Particularly in social science research and environmental science, it is important to bring the perspectives of stakeholders and local knowledge into the research. This leads to different outcomes with more support in society that then have more impact.

How can we discover and promote sustainable solutions without falling into the polarisation trap?

It is always safer to start from the future than from fixed, entrenched positions in the present. So if you start thinking with stakeholders about what the Netherlands should look like in 2030 or 2050, you can develop a common perspective together. And if you then also get to know each other better in the process, for example, by meeting at locations that people are not yet familiar with, for example first at a farmer's farm for a day, then at the visitors' centre of the State Forestry Department, then you build up some relationship capital, social cohesion, which makes the dialogue easier. Then you have a different kind of conversation.

I like to use the pizza analogy to describe the process of co-creation. If you’re with a group of people and ask who wants pizza, people tend to go for the biggest slice. Picture now that with this same group of people, you first discuss what kind of pizza everybody wants. During this process, you come to a mutual understanding. Collectively you develop a design and choose the toppings etc. Then when the pizza is baked, you’ll see that no one is interested anymore in getting the largest slice. That’s no longer important. Even more, participants will more likely offer you the largest piece because of the relationships you’ve got and the shared perspective.

At our university, we also should leave room for divergent views and approaches. We often talk about One-Wageningen, but that's just a slogan to show one unified brand. There is not One Wageningen, but a pluralistic community of unique research groups. That’s something I’d like to cherish. We shouldn’t be homogeneous and look at problems through the same lens.

How do co-creation and stakeholder engagement take place at WUR?

A good example are the living labs in which we work together with stakeholders on joint solutions for transition challenges in the field of climate, water or energy. For example, the AMS Institute (Amsterdam Institute for Metropolitan Solutions). Another example within education is the ACT project Nitrogen as teaching materials (Stikstof als lesstof). As part of their ACT assignment, students developed a teaching module for citizens and nature lovers that explains what nitrogen is and what it does. In creating the teaching material, different perspectives were included,which taught students to empathise with other lived realities.

The Science Shop (Wetenschapswinkel) is also an example where WUR is co-creating knowledge. It organises research projects in collaboration with non-profit groups in society to find answers to their questions. Furthermore, funders like NWO, KNAW, and Horizon Europe more often require that within your research, you collaborate with various parties in society.

What role does science communication play within open science?

Science communication is not the right word. That suggests we have done the research and written a report and we only need to communicate the results. Within social science and sustainability projects, we nowadays use more responsive research methods that bring in local knowledge and expertise and put communities’ knowledge, capacities and needs at the centre. So more communication skills are asked of researchers when entering, and even encouraging, an engaging dialogue. We have to engage, listen deeply and accept inevitable tensions, differences and uncertainty within the research.

How can you value citizen science projects?

Traditionally, your valuation comes from your peers and reviewers and is measured by citations. Policy impact and value creation like new patents are also taken into account.

In the transition towards open science and in projects that want to have a social impact, the valuation must come from those who participate in that process. That calls for less hard and prefixed targets and other evaluation criteria. For example you should take into account changes in attitudes, behaviour and knowledge in citizen science projects. These ‘soft goals’, like more social cohesion and trust in the city council, or changes in the curriculum of local schools, are important as well. Those changes cannot always be easily measured but that doesn´t make them less important.

Do you have tips for other researchers?

Many researchers are stuck in the tenure track system and experience a high workload and pressure to publish. Fortunately, the tenure track system is changing, becoming less strict and moving more towards valuing societal relevance impact, so there is gradually more room for other types of research.

There are more and more boundary-crossing journals that not only publish research of one discipline but integrate different fields of science. For example, journals such as Ecology & Society and Planetary Health, are umbrella journals in which the relationships and the connection with the system or holistic perspective are important. So, there are also good opportunities to publish citizen science research.

So my tip is that if you're willing to do transdisciplinary transition research with several parties and from different sides, there are plenty of journals in which you can publish your research. Look especially for boundary-crossing journals in which there is room for research methods in which participation and involvement of other groups and other types of knowledge citizens/stakeholders are considered important.

This Open Science Story is based on an interview with Arjen Wals by Annemieke Sweere from WUR Library.