Role‑play with research assignment: didactic approach
How can open access be taught in a way that goes beyond theory? At Bern University of Applied Sciences (BFH), I developed a didactic role‑play, a teaching technique designed to make learning more interactive and meaningful, in which the library apprentices took on the role of a research team. The aim was to make open access and open research data a lived experience and to foster lasting understanding by walking the apprentices through the publication process step by step. Supporting roles such as publisher representatives, peer reviewers, research leads and open access advisors were played by colleagues from the university library.
By the end of the role‑play, the apprentices had achieved three key goals in practice:
depositing open research data in the institutional data repository OLOS
submitting their publication to an external journal
archiving the publication in the institutional repository ARBOR.
The tasks followed real‑world procedures:
Data collection: The apprentices conducted a simulated study on social media use among their own school peers. They simulated gathering data on age, platforms used, daily usage time and mobile devices. We discussed how data can be anonymized during and/or after the survey. The proximity to their own class made the scenario vivid and enabled deeper engagement with data protection and contextual sensitivity during anonymization.
Writing the research paper: Using Copilot, the apprentices outlined a manuscript, including abstract, title, author details and institutional affiliations.
Journal selection and submission: The apprentices reviewed several journals from different publishers, assessing open access options and thematic relevance, always in line with the institutional open science strategy. Two journals were selected for submission. The first publisher, played by a fellow librarian, rejected the manuscript due to thematic mismatch, illustrating the realities of editorial selection. The second publisher, played by another librarian colleague, accepted the manuscript but requested more elaboration in the manuscript on the research methodology. The peer review was then initiated, conducted by yet another colleague who asked the apprentices to make minor adjustments to the manuscript.
The apprentices printed out the respective manuscript version for each intermediate step and the publisher’s representative wrote the appropriate version with the date on it to clarify the differences between the manuscript versions (submission date = preprint, acceptance date = postprint, version of record).
Licensing and funding: Once the manuscript had been accepted, the apprentices examined the licensing options offered by the chosen publisher and discussed funding options such as using the existing read and publish contract or the BFH’s open access fund. To simulate the article processing charge (APC) payment, the apprentices collected play money from a librarian, which led to a lively discussion about the actual costs of open access publishing.
Repository deposit: After publication, the apprentices archived their work in a cardboard box looking like ARBOR, BFH’s institutional repository, as a preprint, postprint and version of record. At the same time, they deposited their research data in a cardboard box simulating OLOS, the institutional data repository. To emphasize the relevance of DOIs and the link between publication and research data, we stuck publisher DOI, ARBOR‑DOI and OLOS‑DOI on the prepared metadata fields.
Considerations and key learnings
It was important to acknowledge the diverse prior knowledge among the apprentices. To address this, I used targeted questions to activate their practical experience, whether from professional training or other institutions. To illustrate complex topics such as the goal of publishing transformation, I drew on familiar examples from everyday life, such as the pricing models for public transport in Switzerland.
The closeness of the research topic to their own class required particular sensitivity. Discussions around data protection, especially when handling fictional but personal data, were both technical and situational.
Open questions, relatable examples and playful elements (like the APC simulation) proved effective in sparking curiosity and lowering barriers. The APC play money made the financial aspects of publishing tangible and sparked a lively discussion about the sometimes substantial costs involved.
The apprentices’ feedback was very positive in terms of both the method and the content. They found the high degree of practical relevance combined with the right dose of theory and the independent implementation of the individual steps particularly motivating. By simulating scientific research work using known data and subsequently publishing the manuscript, as well as working with realistic roles and different people embodying these roles, they gained comprehensive insight into the complex topics of open access and open data within a single day. The apprentices reported that they now have a better understanding of what constitutes a scientific publication, how many steps are required behind the scenes and how many people are involved. A highlight was discovering how easy it is to apply Creative Commons licences, even to their own images or texts. Furthermore, the practical task with the cardboard boxes, which symbolized the various repositories and helped to illustrate the importance of good metadata and the process of linking metadata, e.g. DOI, was particularly insightful for the apprentices.
Looking ahead
The role‑play has proven to be a highly effective format, not only for teaching open access and open research data, but for experiencing them collaboratively. It strengthens understanding of scholarly publishing and empowers the apprentices to actively shape and reflect on the process. Furthermore, the chosen format allows sufficient scope for spontaneous discussions and suitable learning sessions that respond to the participants’ individual questions.
Several colleagues from the university library have expressed their interest in using the format for internal training with senior library staff. The practical structure and realistic roles provide an ideal basis for strengthening basic open science knowledge within the institution. As a practitioner and trainer, I take away this insight: well‑designed practical scenarios have a more lasting impact than any theoretical presentation. The enthusiasm with which the apprentices embraced the role‑play serves both as a validation of the chosen didactic approach and as an inspiration for further training situations with upcoming apprentices and library staff alike.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the apprentices for the shared experience and for agreeing to share their learning experiences with interested readers.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this and other Insights articles can be accessed here – click on the following URL and then select the ‘full list of industry A&As’ link: http://www.uksg.org/publications#aa.
Competing interests
The author has declared no competing interests.