Conference Program

The relationship between science and society has been shaped by a long process of reflection unfolded through different phases, following a dialectical movement and alternating moments of democratization and exclusion (Valente, 2002; Neave, 2006). Within this trajectory, Open Science - OS (UNESCO, 2021) represents an attempt to make scientific processes more transparent, accessible, and collaborative, extending participation beyond academia to institutions and society at large. However, this aspiration may entail inherent pitfalls. While potentially representing an opportunity to provide marginalized individuals and communities with access to the data, infrastructures, and tools needed to address both local and global challenges (Bezuidenhout et al., 2020), it risks reproducing inequalities and existing asymmetries when infrastructural, cultural, and methodological choices remain unexamined, thereby reinforcing dominant knowledge paradigms (Leonelli, 2023; Fraser, 2007). For this reason, it is essential that OS, positioning itself at the intersection of Ziman's critique of post-academic and proprietary science and Galtung's conception of positive peace (Galtung, 2013), includes epistemic justice among its structural objectives (Fricker, 2007), thereby pursuing scientific pluralism and equitable access to knowledge.

Research Infrastructures (RIs) have become one of the main settings through which OS is promoted and implemented, fostering new environments where collective process of knowledge co-creation may be hosted, and technical expertise may be integrated with contextual and situated knowledges (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). RIs are defined as complex socio-technical ecosystems (ESFRI, 2020) in which knowledge production depends as much on human, social, and institutional relations as much on technological architectures, conceived as full-fledged actors (Latour, 1987). RIs are not neutral enablers of research but active participants in shaping epistemic possibilities and exclusions (Braidotti, 2022).

In light of this, to effectively advance OS, RIs requires more than investments in technologies and facilities: they also demand a specific focus on the competences of researchers and infrastructure users (UNESCO, 2021; When et al., 2024). Such competences can no longer be limited to disciplinary expertise, but must also include ethical awareness, reflexivity, collaborative capacity, openness to epistemological diversity, and the ability to engage publics in scientific practices. From this perspective, training and lifelong learning acquire a fully transformative meaning (Mezirow, 1991; Sterling, 2001), aligning with the principles of the Transformative Education (TE), rooted in democratic and dialogical traditions. The convergence between OS and TE is particularly relevant in the pursuit of positive peace. Beyond the mere absence of conflict, positive peace entails the construction of more just, equal, and harmonious societies (Galtung, 2013).

This contribution discusses training activities within the FOSSR RI, aimed at promoting OS in Social Science research. FOSSR developed a multilevel ecosystem connecting learning forms, audiences, and engagement levels into a coherent capacity-building strategy (Spinello & Fabrizio, 2025). The portfolio comprises foundational Online Training Courses introducing OS and FAIR principles; Participatory Sessions engaging participants in co-design and experiential learning; and Higher Education Programmes designed in collaboration with academic institutions. By enabling research environments with a commitment to transformative training, the FOSSR approach exemplifies how OS and TE can jointly contribute to building more democratic, and peaceful knowledge societies.