As a result, transparency can feel like vulnerability.
Like all people, researchers tend to avoid vulnerability; they might do so out of a desire to achieve more, or because of a fear of failure, or even simply an enthusiasm to finish projects and move on to uae rcs data the next. It seems to me that the answer is curiosity. Researchers benefit from being curious about:
how others respond to their work, and
whether the way they have done something is the best way to do that.
When researchers are genuinely curious, that curiosity can open them up to a better understanding of the knowledge and practices of others, can drive them to seek out how their work is interpreted by others, and can motivate them to engage with how they work is incorporated into or contrasted with existing bodies of knowledge.
The value of curiosity obviously applies to the outputs of a researcher’s work, but it can also apply to the processes by which researchers work.
Curious researchers can apply their curiosity inwardly. For example, researchers would benefit from being curious and asking questions such as:
How do I capture my insights and ideas? How else might I capture them?
How do I document the decisions made over time on long term projects?
What is a fair distribution of work on collaborative projects and how are contributions tracked?
What tools are available to help me capture, document, or track the less visible parts of research work?
This curious reflection can also feel quite vulnerable because it entails being open to the idea that there are diverse ways to do things, that assumptions may not be accurate, that current process may not be equitable in the way opportunities, responsibilities or credit are shared across a team.