Fair trade in building digital knowledge repositories: the knowledge economy as if researchers mattered

Med Health Care Philos. 2020 Dec;23(4):549-563. doi: 10.1007/s11019-020-09966-z.

Abstract

Both a significant body of literature and the case study presented here show that digital knowledge repositories struggle to attract the needed level of data and knowledge contribution that they need to be successful. This happens also to high profile and prestigious initiatives. The paper argues that the reluctance of researchers to contribute can only be understood in light of the highly competitive context in which research careers need to be built nowadays and how this affects researchers' quality of life. Competition and managerialism limit the discretion of researchers in sharing their results and in donating their working time. A growing corpus of research shows that academic researchers are increasingly overworked and highly stressed. This corroborates the point that the room for undertaking additional tasks with future and uncertain benefits is very limited. The paper thus recommends that promoters of digital knowledge repositories focus on the needs of the researchers who are expected to contribute their knowledge. In order to treat them fairly and to ensure the success of the repositories, knowledge sharing needs to be rewarded so as to improve the working conditions of contributors. In order to help implementing this researcher-centred approach, the paper proposes the idea of expediential trust: rewards for contributing should be such that rational, self-interested researchers would freely decide to contribute their knowledge and effort trusting that this would make them better off.

Keywords: Competition in research; Data sharing; Expediential trust; Incentives and rewards; Knowledge repositories.

MeSH terms

  • Biomedical Research / organization & administration*
  • Biomedical Research / standards
  • Humans
  • Information Dissemination / methods*
  • Information Storage and Retrieval / standards*
  • Knowledge
  • Research Personnel / psychology*
  • Trust*