Diferenças na produção, compartilhamento e (re)uso de dados : a percepção de pesquisadores da Química, Antropologia e Educação

Abstract

A study on disciplinary differences in production or achievement, sharing and (re)using data, from researchers' perspective. The study aimed to identify production/achievement practices, sharing and (re)using research data in Chemistry, Anthropology, and Education. The theoretical framework drew on discussions on aspects of scientific communication, especially those concerning research data, in the perspective of disciplinary differences. Fundaments of this research built in a constructivist conception considering participants' viewpoints and the different sociocultural contexts they experience. Methodologically, the research nature is of a descriptive nature, adopting a qualitative investigation strategy and survey method. The population in the study was comprised by researchers acting in postgraduate programs in Chemistry, Anthropology, and Education. The selected sample was established by means of non-probabilistic intentional sampling, in consonance with the diversification principle, externally (intergroup), also called contrast. Thus, the sample comprises different tenured professors from the postgraduate program in Chemistry (three researchers), Anthropology (three researchers), and Education (four researchers) at the University of Brasília (UnB). The data were collected by means of semi-structured interviews performed with the researchers comprising the sample in this study. NVivo software (Starter Edition) was employed to help with analytical procedures. From the results obtained in the study, differences stood out among the three disciplinary areas concerning: i) researchers' practices in producing or achieving research dataaspects influencing them; ii) sharing research datastimulating or inhibiting motives; and iii) research data (re)use practicessimulating or inhibiting factors. After a comparative analysis, the conclusion we reach is that different lines of research coexist in the same discipline, which use specific methods and techniques. Therefore, there are specificities concerning production/achievement practices, and research data (re)use and sharing in each one of the disciplines investigated in this study.

Ciência Aberta: argumentos e desafios para sua legitimação científica

“…Propondose comunicar e fazer a ciência de forma responsável, transparente e inclusiva (Inácio;Amante, 2021). Quanto ao uso da dimensão ético-legal-cultural foi encontrado em onze (11) estudos de forma parcial (Caruso, 2015;Oliveira, 2016;Guirra, 2018;Santos, 2019;Menêses, 2019;Arraíza, 2019;Appel, 2019;Resende, 2019;Silveira, 2019;Bertin et al, 2019;Vasconcellos;Lorenzi, 2020) e em dois de uso específico e único (Carvalho, 2018;Papi, 2016), destacando o trabalho colaborativo, sua postura ética e preocupação com o compartilhamento de dados. Os fundamentos utilizados pelos estudos consideraram que a ciência aberta se legitima por meio da forma colaborativa de produzir conhecimento, que converge com as atribuições educacionais do governo, que por intermédio das Universidades Públicas, utiliza-se de banco de dados compartilhados para gerar conhecimento.…”