I entered the field of open science as something of an outsider, but I quickly got to grips with it through research communities such as Open Knowledge Finland (ry). A factor in open science which strengthens team spirit is the occasional flash of pure joy at being able to practise it, and the belief in the new. It has sparked my interest in completely new things, such as reflecting on the significance of open city data as a humanities scholar.

As the University of Helsinki strongly promotes digital humanities as well as the study of digitalisation, I am starting to slowly understand why it is positively crucial for humanities researchers to take part in different kinds of future projects involving cities, living and transportation. Researchers in the humanities play a real part in influencing the future and taking responsibility for what happens, not just criticising the culture of power and supervision (which, naturally, also should be critically evaluated).

As humanities scholars and students, we must have the courage to tackle sufficiently large and complex questions. This does not mean that it is not those little stories that are the most interesting, but in order to tell those stories a larger perspective is needed. Scholars should also abandon the alibis they use to justify merely tinkering around. Cooperation and the examination of bigger data sets will hopefully make central research questions seem clearer. Leo Lahti has helped me understand how it is precisely openness that “promotes public criticism of research results and their use, which is the cornerstone of science”. In humanities research we need more repeatability, effectiveness, quality and wider usage.

Although I am a cynical historian, I would still go as far as to honestly claim that I believe this openness will result in relative development. While research questions still lead the way in digital humanities, we can also see some rays of sunlight between the dark clouds on the horizon.