Motivations for Open Science in Linguistics

Transcription

For barrier-free access, the transcript of the episode is available below.

Click to view transcript

1. Introduction

Ali: Hello and welcome! It’s Kathrin and me, Ali, here today. Kathrin, you and I recently took part in the course Open Science, didn’t we?

Kathrin: Mhm, yea that’s right.

Ali: Would you like to explain why we are talking about Open Science at all and what it actually is?

Kathrin: Oh, well there is actually a lot of things to say about this topic, isn’t it?

Ali: Yes, but since there are other parts of this big textbook where it was already introduced it in detail, I want a brief summary about what it is and why it is important.

Kathrin: Okay, i’ll try to give a brief summary, so we’re all on the same page.

Ali: That would be great.

Kathrin: Open Science is a movement that aims to make scientific research more transparent, accessible and reproducible. The origin was the so-called replication crisis, because many research in the arts and social sciences have been found difficult or impossible to replicate.

Ali: Yeah. I’ve heard about that. Mmm, there was also the problem of accessibility, right?

Kathrin: Exactly. Mmm, a lot of scientific papers are locked behind paywalls, which makes it really difficult to gain access to knowledge for people or institutions, who don’t have the means.

Ali: chuckles , tell me about it! Every time I try to read a paper at home, I am met with paywall unless I’m connected to the university’s network.

Kathrin: That’s such a common experience. And it really limits who can engage with scientific knowledge. Open Science addresses this by promoting practices that make research freely available, not just to scientists, but to everyone. The idea is to democratize access to knowledge, so it’s not just reserved for those who can afford it.

2. Personal Motivations for Open Science [1:37]

Ali: Yes, when you say it like that, it sounds great. But when I think of the things that we have discussed about Open Science in the class. Like pre-registration, or like making the data accessible, or learning Open Source Software from Scratch, it sounds a little bit too much to me. I ask myself, like why would someone voluntarily go through all that? Or like, why would an academic, who already has a lot to do, say a linguist, take that leap?

Kathrin: chuckles That is a very legitimate question. There are actually many good reasons and motivations that linguists have to practice Open Science. Beyond the benefits, for the science, people and the greater good, we’ll touch upon that later, there are good personal motivations for linguists to do it. For instance our instructor, Elen Le Foll, conducted a study, in which she interviewed linguists on Open Science and asked them for their motivations on practicing open Science.

Ali: Ah right, mmm, I remember that. And what did she find? Like, what were the common results?

Kathrin: One of the most frequently mentioned benefits was that it helps researchers stay organized. Because open science promotes practices such as pre-registration, which is already a long story on its own, if you are interested you can check other chapters in this textbook, or open data; it requires the researcher to keep everything organized, as researchers know that their work must be understandable for others from the very beginning onwards.

Ali: And also, when we are talking about open science, it is not just the preregistration and the code, right? It is also about the paper itself being freely accessible to everyone, as said, not only to those who have means.That way, the knowledge can get disseminated way faster and to a much broader audience.

Kathrin: Because it’s free, you don’t need to pay 50 euros just to read an article.

Ali: Well you are being optimistic, there are many journals where it costs much more.

Kathrin: Who can even afford that regularly?

Ali: Yeah exactly, that’s exactly the problem, right? When knowledge becomes so exclusive, it’s a huge barrier for broader communities, which is, to be honest, quite undemocratic.

Kathrin: Yes, you’re right.

3. Field-specific Motivations for Open Science [3:51]

Ali: Can you think of any fields in linguistics that are affected by this? I mean, the topic is very broad, and it is a broad problem, but can you think of any examples from linguistics?

Kathrin: Sure, let’s get specific. Thinking about applied linguistics, okay, this is going to be very detailed, buckle up …

Ali: Aha, okay, I’m all ears…

Kathrin: But, for instance: What I thought about immediately, is the linguistic environment of Australia. We are going to have a little thematic excursion now, but very briefly: Pre-colonisation, Australia had over 400 Indigenous languages. Those were drastically decimated when the continent became colonized from 1788 until 1901. The colonizers wanted to force Indigenous people to speak English. Therefore, children were taken away from their families and were ‘re-educated’ and forced to learn the English language. As a consequence, many Indigenous people lost their languages completely, some language communities have very few speakers left. Today, there are ongoing efforts to revive and reconstruct those languages, because obviously they are a huge part of someone’s identity and history, would you agree?

Ali: Yeah, of course, but hmm, that sounds more like a reason to support Open Science rather than a personal motivation for linguists?

Kathrin: True, but it can actually be both. Let me explain: In order to reclaim those languages, many linguists start so-called revitalization projects to reconstruct a language’s grammar, vocabulary and phonology. However, during this process, the language owners have to heavily rely on the knowledge, ideas and financial resources of research institutes during such projects. Or, if there is no linguist who can actively collaborate with them, have very little chances to reclaim their languages. Whereas, in my opinion, it should be the language owners who guide the process and make important decisions on their language. Now, with Open Science, smaller language communities would have the possibilities to access research on their languages and language revitalization in general, in order to make themselves familiar with the topic for revitalising the language of their ancestors. In my opinion, this example from applied linguistics illustrates how knowledge can be democratized and used for collective benefit, which is, in my opinion, a very good motivation to practice Open Science. Moreover, it strengthens Social Justice Principles, which some participants in Elen’s study also mentioned as a motivation to do open Science.

Ali: So Open Science, in that context, isn’t just about accessibility, it’s also about empowerment.

Kathrin: Exactly. And that’s why I think this example from applied linguistics is so powerful.

4. Broader Motivations for Open Science [6:33]

Ali: Well your example makes me think more about the broader benefits of Open science. In Elen’s study many linguists stated that Open science has benefits not only to the individual researchers, but it actually benefits the entire field, and moves the field forward.

Kathrin: How do you mean that?

Ali: Well first, it speeds up the research in the field. As Winke suggests, open science promotes pre-registration, which means the hypothesis, research questions and all materials that are going to be used in the research are registered somewhere before the study actually starts to be researched.

Kathrin: Ah okay. I see what you mean.

Ali: And this is extremely helpful, when you think that research takes a lot of time to conduct, like some field research for language documentation and stuff may take years.

Kathrin: Ah yeah, like some researchers must go to travel to the other end of the world, and stay there for a while, gather the data…

Ali: …and analyze it.

Kathrin: Yeah, and it doesn’t stop there. Once the study is finally done, you still have to submit it to a journal and go through all the publication process.

Ali: Exactly! That might take another couple of years.

Kathrin: If it ever gets accepted!

Ali: If it ever gets accepted! chuckles And think about other people, who are at another place in the world, thinking about doing or already conducting a similar work?

Kathrin: Yeah, a giant potential for collaboration is gone.

Ali: That’s exactly my point. In the non-open-science scenario, these two researchers would be doing double work, that would require much more time. People might see your work right away, instead of waiting for years, with open science, because otherwise the research might no longer be relevant. And that means we’re not all just out here reinventing the wheel. If someone in Brazil or Japan is working on the same question as you, they don’t have to start from scratch. They can build on what has already been done.

Kathrin: That saves so much time and efforts.

Ali: And its not only that, Winke states that some journals have already started with so-called “registered reports” which means the journal promises publishing the work when it is done if the preregistration is accepted, no matter how the results turn out to be.

Kathrin: Wow!

Ali: Yeah, this takes a lot of pressure from the researchers! Like there is a great publication push on academics right now. Your study must have flashy results, having very low p values…

Kathrin: Yeah, because inflated or even fabricated results aren’t just a scientific problem—they’re an ethical one. Especially in language testing, where the stakes are high. We’re talking about decisions that affect university admissions, visa approvals…

Ali: Yeah, exactly. And that also means more honest work! So if the research behind the test is skewed to look “better” than it is, the consequences are real. But with open science, you’re not punished for like, having null or boring results. That makes the research more honest and the whole community, too.

Kathrin: totally.

5. Conclusion [9:38]

Ali: Yeah. So Kathrin, if you had to summarize the main motivations for linguists to practice Open Science, what would they be?

Kathrin: I’d say the key motivations include democratizing knowledge and involving marginalized communities in the research process. Also, practices like pre-registration make research more structured and transparent, and they can reduce the pressure to publish only sensational findings. In the end, it’s about doing better science—for everyone.

Ali: Well said. Open Science isn’t just a method. It’s a mindset. One that values clarity, collaboration, and collective progress.

Kathrin: And if more researchers adopt that mindset, especially in linguistics, we might just find ourselves moving toward a more inclusive and honest future.

Ali: Kathrin, thank you for the conversation.

Kathrin: Thank you, Ali.