Tag Archives: community

Open scholarship challenges

Alice Gibson
Research Publications Officer
Library & Archives Service
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Post-conference reflections on FORCE2018

Introduction

Further to my post ‘Planning to get the most out of FORCE2018‘, written before attending the conference through a UCISA bursary, I have been back from Montreal for over a fortnight now and have had time to reflect on the key points I have learned from the experience, as well as how I wish to integrate this into my professional work moving forwards.
I participated in a publisher-led conversation about what support we might want to see from them regarding open access books and was encouraged to submit a poster at the conference, which I found to be a beneficial experience. Standing by this during the poster sessions led to several engaging discussions with people from across the open scholarship environment, from a lawyer, a fellow researcher, librarians and publishers. I found it encouraging that people with a variety of outlooks, coming from a variety of professional backgrounds and personal interests, could also appreciate the positivity of Creative Commons licences and consider the ways in which their use can be extended beyond academia, in addition to across the research and teaching process.
In my previous write-up, I said I was particularly looking forward to Asura Enkhbayar’s presentation linking Wittgenstein and scholarly communications. I found this humorous and insightful, and it was great to see it appreciated by a room full of enthusiastic attendees on the first session of the first official day.

Asura Enkhbayar presenting ‘Throwing away the ladder. Wittgenstein’s philosophy and and scholarly communication’

Central Themes

Over the course of the workshops and presentations (from October 10-12, 2018), I was struck by the proportion of the challenges that were discussed in an international setting that are the same as those that we face in the UK. This convinced me that the move towards open scholarship is a global challenge that we must tackle from both local and international settings.
What follows is a brief summary, in which I seek to highlight my conviction that the academic reward structure must be revisited as a matter of priority to ensure that the effect of associated procedures are not detrimental to the progression of open scholarship or the mental wellbeing of academics. The failure to protect either of these is also the failure to ensure the flourishing of the pursuit of knowledge in our societies. It seems to me that one constructive way we might confront such a challenge is by doubling down on our efforts to further existing commitment for essential initiatives like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

Open Access and Academic Reward and Recognition Policies

A theme that struck me throughout the conference was the need to ensure that mission statements of institutions and reward procedures align with initiatives prioritising open research.
Erin McKiernan’s excellent presentation demonstrated the extent of the disparity between academic promotion procedures and open research. I was alarmed by the results, which showed that words that appeared regularly within tenure review documents include ‘public’, ‘community’, ‘public engagement’ and ‘community engagement’, all of which have close affiliations with open research, whilst only 5% of analysed documents directly mention ‘open access’. Moreover, when such documents mentioned ‘open access’, they often did so with neutral or even negative connotations. This highlighted to me that the challenges we face in Europe are shared by institutions in North America, and most likely, also elsewhere. It consequently convinced me of the need to direct extensive efforts in this area, particularly towards encouraging a culture shift in those who are empowered to revise reward procedures.

Erin McKiernan presenting ‘A look at public engagement, publication outputs and metrics in the tenure review process’
We ought to combine this ongoing effort with those that guide researchers who are earlier on in their careers, who are most receptive to adopting good practice, which can have a ripple effect, informing the practice of their colleagues. As such, Dominique Roche’s presentation ‘Open data: nice people can’t share!’ (summarised in his poster to the left) touched upon a welcome topic by examining why researchers might be hesitant to share their work. An understanding of this can help drive a culture change that works from the ground up.

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

Returning to the findings of Erin McKiernan’s presentation, these led me to consider a theme that emerged at an open access meeting in London (known as the ‘London Open Access Network’, or ‘LOAN’ meeting) the week prior to the conference.
At this meeting, a colleague shared thoughts on an event that took place in September, ‘Mapping the Future of Research Assessment’ at Imperial College London. This event (#ImperialDora) associated the theme of review procedures with the need to consecrate the ethos of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) (of which London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a signatory) with institutional policies. Many stakeholders are working to improve good practice within this area, striving to promote real change in research assessment, but challenges remain. The Imperial College event highlighted, as outlined in Elizabeth Gadd’s post on the LSE Impact Blog, the need to ensure that such practices are not in conflict with the necessity to protect and foster mental health within Higher Education environments, amongst staff and students alike. This seems to me an area that we at LSHTM, a School that underlined our commitment to tackling stigma surrounding mental health by signing the Time to Change Employer’s Pledge, have to take seriously.

LSHTM Open Access Week – Screening ‘Paywall the Movie’

One event that LSHTM ran for our open access month series was a screening of the movie ‘Paywall: the Business of Scholarship’ (in which many attendees of FORCE2018 are featured!). In the post-screening discussion, one member of staff noted the continued and problematic use of impact factors in review procedures. This prompted an interesting discussion within the room similar to that which took place during many of the presentations at FORCE2018, notably, during the questions after Elisabeth Shook’s presentation ‘Thanks, Sci-Hub!’.
This too convinced me of the global commonality of such issues within Higher Education. The theme of impact factors (created by Eugene Garfield for selecting journals to include in the Science Citation Index in the 1960s,) which are no longer deemed credible, was examined in another engaging session at FORCE2018 by the bibliometrician Stefanie Haustein, who ran a metrics literacy quiz on Twitter during her talk. Within her talk, Stefanie highlighted that the impact factor is mentioned by one fifth of Canadian and US universities in review, tenure and promotion documents, despite having widely been recognised to cause harm to scholarly communication by causing ‘salami publishing’, ‘citation cartels’ and fostering a problematic ‘publish or perish’ mentality.
Overall, the event reminded me of the shared work that we have to do as a community concerned with open scholarship. It left me feeling lucky to reside in London (although Montreal was beautiful to see in the Autumn!) where participating in such a community can occur with relative ease thanks to networks like ‘LOAN’ bringing together workers promoting open research in various institutions. In the meantime, I would encourage individual researchers and organisations to read and sign DORA and express these values when they hear of the use of impact factors to make unjustified claims for the quality of research.
This blog first appeared in the LSHTM Library & Archives Services blog.
Interested in finding out more about a UCISA bursary, then visit UCISA Bursary Scheme.

The five social media literacies

Beccy Dresden
Senior TEL Designer
Open University

 

 

 

DigPedLab Vancouver 2017 – Day Two

Beccy Dresden was funded to attend this event as a 2017 UCISA bursary winner

Following on from a busy Day One of DigPedLab Vancouver, by Day 2 my jetlag had subsided, and I’d got my bearings in Richmond, so I was ready for some serious learning!

Morning session: media literacies

Our main focus for the Day Two morning Digital Literacies session was reviewing and responding to some of the suggested readings that had been provided.  Bonnie Stewart, Co-ordinator of Adult Teaching University of Prince Edward Island, who was leading the Digital Literacies track, asked us to think about how our chosen article(s) shaped our perspective on what it is to ‘be’ in digital culture. We broke into small groups to do this, and my group spent most of the session analysing the Rheingold (2010) article.

Rheingold focuses on what he calls five social media literacies:

  • attention
  • participation
  • collaboration
  • network awareness
  • critical consumption.

We took one of those each, and I noted the following…

Attention

Rheingold’s starting point is that people in class should be paying him attention! This led us to briefly discuss differences between acceptable behaviour in face-to-face (F2F) educational environments and ‘remote’ behaviours; the latter was of particular interest to me, as Open University students have relatively little F2F contact with their educators, and it’s quite normal for them to have multiple demands on their attention while they are studying.

Participation

The digital literacy aspects of this section were about:

  • how to participate with value
  • being active citizens rather than passive consumers
  • creating vs consuming
  • assumptions about education of citizens, and ‘proper behaviour’
  • moving from the literacy of participation to a literacy of collaboration.

Collaboration

This was the section I looked at, so I didn’t take many notes! The one thing I did write down was ‘negotiating goals – positive or negative’: make of that what you will!

Network awareness

This section tied in quite nicely with Bonnie’s literacy timeline from Day 1. Rheingold’s key points were that:

  • networks essentially amplify and extend our abilities and capacities – for better or worse, and that
  • basically technology itself is an amplifier – going all the way back to the printing press.

We briefly discussed differences between networks and communities (with reference to a recent online debate between Kate Bowles and Stephen Downes), speculating that perhaps communities change, as well as amplify? One member of the group suggested that shared values and beliefs are required for true collaboration – that it’s easy to be communal but harder to be collaborative. Do you agree?

Critical consumption

This section seemed to buy into the cliché that print (offline) resources are innately trustworthy, and online resources innately dubious: as a group we vehemently disagreed with this.

We had a bit of time left, so we also looked briefly at the Tressie McMillan Cottom (2017) article, focusing on one of her six takeaways, ‘master platforms’, and the concept of micro-celebrity.

Master platforms

The article states that ‘social media platforms are designed to facilitate certain kinds of behaviors. Twitter amplifies. Facebook brands. Tumblr remixes. Instagram illustrates’. We agreed that what was important for digital literacy was to think about strategies for dealing with the negative aspects of each platform.

Academic microcelebrity

We identified a tension between the desire to take academia into the public, and achieving effective communication, when ‘lots of academia is deliberately pointless and esoteric’.

We also talked about:

  • gaining currency through identity
  • achieving impact vs social change, and
  • claimed values vs demonstrated behaviours.

After the session, participants shared related resources via our teaching in digital Slack channel – you might like to take a look at the following:

 Interested in finding out more about a UCISA bursary, then visit UCISA Bursary Scheme.

Setting the scene for reflections on DigPedLab Vancouver 2017

Beccy Dresden
Senior TEL Designer
The Open University

DigPedLab Vancouver 2017 – Background

Beccy Dresden was funded to attend this event as a 2017 UCISA bursary winner

A bit about me….

I’m Beccy Dresden, a Senior TEL Designer (TEL = technology enhanced learning) at The Open University, where I’ve worked for nearly 18 years. I joined the OU from a professional publishing background, and have supported the development of modules on subjects as diverse as law, languages, social work, and English grammar.

My department – the TEL Design team – works in partnership with academic experts, Learning and Teaching Innovation portfolio colleagues, and students and tutors, to design, produce, support and evaluate OU modules. The team’s work draws on and contributes to the learning, teaching and innovation evidence base of the University, and embodies emerging technologies and research to reinforce the OU’s position as the UK leader in supported online and distance learning. The modules we produce are now digital by default, but we are keen to ensure that the online experience we offer our students is driven by pedagogy, not technology. Within the TEL Design team, my particular areas of interest and scholarship are:

  • the use of social media in HE (both in terms of student-facing content, and as a tool/platform in the continuing professional development (CPD) of academic and professional support staff), and
  • developing digital capabilities (again, in terms of both students and staff at the OU).

Those areas of interest are what led me – via Twitter, Martin Weller, and Lawrie Phipps, among others – to discover Hybrid Pedagogy and their Digital Pedagogy Lab Institutes, or DigPedLab for short.

About DigPedLab Institutes

Ever since I applied for the UCISA bursary back in April, I’ve struggled to explain clearly and concisely to people quite what a DigPedLab Institute is – even those working in the ed tech sector have given me slightly puzzled looks – and each institute is slightly different, so it’s not even a single thing. To focus on the one I attended, in the organisers’ words:

DPL Vancouver is a three-day institute that explores the role and application of digital technology in teaching. Three tracks offer intensive peer-driven learning with and discussion of open education, new media, and critical digital pedagogy.

Participants choose between one of three tracks and work collaboratively in small workshop-style classes. Each track is open to all backgrounds and skill levels. Each day of the institute begins with discussion that will play into the day’s work. A continental breakfast will be provided before sessions begin mid-morning, followed by lunch. Afternoons will be split into multiple sessions and will include keynote presentations, workshops, and other activities. Each day will end before dinner. The learning community we create together will be welcoming to a wide range of skill levels and interests.”

The tracks on offer in Vancouver were:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I chose Digital Literacies led by Bonnie Stewart.  This track was described as:

“focused on the development of participatory, networked literacies that enable collaboration, contribution, and critical sense-making within information abundance. It fosters a critical orientation toward tools, portfolios, and digital presence within networks. Participants will discuss and experiment with various technological tools from the chalkboard to moveable chairs, computers, mobile devices, social media platforms, and learning management systems. Individual sessions and workshops will focus on teaching philosophies, discernment practices for using digital tools in courses, emergent learning, digital composition, and discussions of the impact of the digital on traditional and critical pedagogies.”

Apart from wanting to be taught by Bonnie, whom I have long admired for her clear-sighted and thoughtful-yet-practical approach to complex digital pedagogy issues, I thought that learning about new critical perspectives for evaluating digital tools and approaches would be invaluable for me and my department.

My further blogs are really just an overview of an intense, inspiring, and challenging weekend that – nearly five months later – is still affecting how I approach my work and my social (media) interactions every day.

Interested in finding out more about a UCISA bursary, then visit UCISA Bursary Scheme.

Windows 10 community day

 

On Wednesday 12th April over 50 IT staff from Universities all over the UK, from Glasgow to Brighton, met at Edge Hill University’s central Manchester campus to discuss the shared challenge posed by the move to Windows 10.

The event began with presentations from four organisations ahead of the curve on the migration – Leeds Beckett University, University of Liverpool, Lancaster University and York St John University – all of whom shared the approach they’d taken, the keys decisions they’d made and the lessons they’d learned.

During the Q&A that followed, we were able to dig a little more into shared concerns like admin rights for users, project resourcing and managing applications.

After lunch, we were joined by representatives from IT service provider Softcat, who shared some of their experience and tips in planning a move to Windows 10, delving into some of the more technical questions that need answering such as choosing a branch and the challenges posed by Microsoft’s new update and support model for the operating system.

The day ended with a workshop structured to help delegates think about, discuss and record the key points picked up during the day. Considering questions around planning, infrastructure and ongoing support, small groups produced prioritised lists of the issues that they wanted to take back to the office and consider while plotting their own migrations.

We’d like to say a big thank you to the representatives of Leeds Beckett, Liverpool, Lancaster and York St John who gave excellent presentations during the morning session and continued to offer their expertise throughout the day. Without their input the day would not have been possible.

Thank you also to Softcat for their input and support for the day and to the staff at Edge Hill University for hosting us and making us feel welcome.

Recordings, presentations and photos from the day are available from the Resources page

Gareth Edwards
Head of IT, Engineering Science
University of Oxford
Member of UCISA-SSG committee

Building curiosity

michelle

 

Michelle Griffiths
ITS Project Manager
IT Services
University of Oxford
Member of UCISA-PCMG

 

If you build it: The power of design to change the world

Emily Pilliton began her keynote session by talking about her book, ‘Design Revolution: 100 Products That Empower’ which was published October 2009. She then moved onto to say that her presentation would be based around a couple of stories that she would like to share with us.

Emily runs a non-profit company named Project H Design, which practices design and architecture in a more meaningful way. Project H has been involved in various projects, including the re-design of playgrounds, computer labs, and a gym for a local football team. Emily started up the company after finishing her Master’s degree, because she felt that, during the course, she hadn’t learned enough about areas that provided any real value.

Emily then went onto talk about the people/experiences that influenced her through her life and career, including TV secret agent, MacGyver.

'MacGyver's Multitool', via Charles Williams, shared via Creative Commons licence

‘MacGyver’s Multitool’, via Charles Williams (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99652207@N00/366985080/), shared via Creative Commons licence

MacGyver focused on solving problems in unconventional ways, thinking ‘outside of the box’ and using whatever objects that he had to hand.

Other major influences in her life came from her grandmothers, who were both very strong-willed and passionate people. They were both librarians; one was a calligrapher, and the other was a cross-stich artist and part time musician.

The teachers at Emily’s school were also very supportive, and made her feel cool to be a nerd! Being a nerd is useful in architecture school, along with building knowledge in the following areas: maths, science, community, and social sciences. It is also useful for obtaining an understanding of and user knowledge about local areas, and the social landscape of the community that you will be developing or building in.

Experience is more important than content
Emily argued that experiences matter more than content; students remember experiences better if they have to work through a series of problem solving activities. She gave the following example:

First Project  (Farmers’ Market public space) – Project H were invited to go along to a high school in eastern North Carolina, to design a public space in the format of a farmers’ market for the town of Windsor. The town has an agricultural background, high obesity rates, poor public health record, and a stagnant economy. The students built the first set of models, which they took along to present to stakeholders. There were a number of constraints that the project had to work with, which included the following:

  • A $50,000 budget
  • A short time period (three months)
  • The local area being on a flood plain, so the building had to be above a certain height off the ground
  • They could only use construction students who were all under 18, apart from one student who became 18 during the project. Only people of 18 years and above were allowed to legally use power tools, so this one student became the go-to power tool guy!

The construction was made on the ground using manual tools such as mallets, and then the frame was raised up to position. The design of the farmer’s market building came entirely from the teenagers, who expressed the desire for it to be a “bold façade”. The next challenge was to find suppliers to sell their wares at the market. The students set out to find people to sell products such as kale.

The launch of the farmers’ market created four new businesses and fifteen new jobs. Emily mentioned that she asked one of the students involved in the project to provide feedback, and the following quote was given: “I want to come back someday with my kids, and tell them I built this”.

Seeking is more important than knowing
Emily suggested that asking questions, such as how and why, is more important than knowing the answers. Being in a constant state of enquiry is the best position.

Second Project  (Middle school library) – Emily went on to discuss her next project at the charter school in Berkley California, which was a useful exercise to demonstrate that Project H can work at both ends of the spectrum. The principal of the school wanted middle school kids (8th graders) to be involved in the project. The group of kids provided extra sets of challenges, including not being able to speak English, autism, and disciplinary problems.

The kids wanted to build a library for their school as a class gift, to give back to the school community. There had been a space earmarked for a library that was never built due to lack of funding. Emily decided as part of the initial planning process that the kids should visit a library; the feedback from the trip was that libraries are super boring! The following conclusions were reached:

  • The kids wanted the library to be a place of discovery and invention, not reference
  • The library would be designed to accommodate 108 8th graders

The group began to design a bookcase that could be put together in 108 different ways. The design that was chosen involved convex/concave shelves with a wavy design, which could be interlocked together in various ways to keep it as flexible as possible. The project felt unfinished and chaotic, but it was what the students wanted: “In Algebra, X is the unknown; the X-space is where we go to discover the things we don’t know”

Third Project (two individual homes built for the homeless) – Emily told us that Project H knew that, as a team, they could get this done no matter what happened. They did not have planning permission to begin with, and were in full view of the principal’s office, so they were expecting a visit to stop their work; fortunately, this didn’t happen.

When the big day arrived to raise the walls, Project H had up to 25 teenagers all working together, using geometry and trigonometry as core subjects that were applied to the project. Pallet wood was the material of choice to be used for the side walls, which posed problems as the wood was different colour, and often contained odd staples and nails hanging out of them. One of the students related to the pallet wood by saying “It’s all different, just like us, like a tapestry.”

Important design decisions were made as a group, such as, although this was a home for a homeless person, it would not contain running water, toilet or a kitchen. The group needed to address the issue that although it was public space, it also needed to provide a level of privacy.

The initial design the kids came up was that of a traditional house, and the two halves that were built, once placed together, resembled the original pencil drawing. A student that had worked on the project gave the following feedback: “I gave someone a place to live. Oh, and I got an A in this class, and I know how to build a house!”

Fourth Project (to create a space for young girls that celebrated curiosity) – This space was based around ideas to do with curiosity: “Curiosity breeds confidence.”

Project H wanted to create a space for young girls who were part of the Camp H after school summer programme for girls aged nine to twelve.

The first step for the girls to create was to build a bird house as a confidence builder, to get the girls used to working with the materials and some basic tools. The second step was to open up their curiosity, develop what you mean personally in order to express your identity as a person.

One of the favourite lessons was to learn arc welding, which really develops the girls’ confidence to move onto bigger welding projects.  The task set was to weld a symbol using four pieces of steel that represents both your first name and your last name. Emily talked through an example of a student with the first name “Ultraviolet” and a last name involving the word “Taylor” and a synonym for dark. The student created a symbol that featured a light and dark side, representing ultraviolet and darkness, which were stitched together to bring in the reference to “Taylor/tailor”.

Fifth Project (creating items to be used in a domestic abuse centre) – The project focused on creating a number of items that improved the experiences of the people living at the domestic abuse shelter. This included the following: coffee table, play house, shelving units, and a metre square garden.

Conclusion

  • “Curiosity takes you to a place where you can help others.”
  • “Curiosity is incremental, curiosity helps others.”
  • A student involved in the project was quoted as saying “I am a ten year old girl and I know how to weld: what can’t I do?”

Emily went onto to discuss the badge system that project H has created. This is similar to the badge system of the Boy Scouts, but the badges are a little different; they include as badges for welding, using power tools, carpentry, electronics and architecture.

She closed the session by advising the audience to think of themselves as learners, and to nurture their own creativity; that way you can nurture and mentor others.

Resource:
A recording of the presentation will be publicly available 90 days after the conference ends.