Good suggestions Wayne, While it doesn't address the 'first to market' perspective of closed approaches to research (where the publishing of drafts would be typically misconstrued to negatively impact a first to market approach - when in fact it proves first to market..) it does suggest a halfway point for negotiating with journals who use restrictive licenses. Good one.
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Leigh, Sarah and WE friends. > > I'm very pleased that Sarah has raised this research related challenge > in the forum. Leigh, that is also a well founded post. > > I have first hand experience of the "pressure" under the PBRF system > in New Zealand and as an academic was also ranked under this research > performance model. I think competition among research institutions in > terms of the quality and quantity of outputs is a good thing -- it > does increase and promote quality over time. There is also healthy > competition in the open source world -- for example among the > different Linux distributions or among the different open source wiki > technologies. Its a natural process of evolution and survival. So I > think the evolutionary principle associated with "survival of the > fittest" is a productive concept. > > So I think we're onto the right track here -- demonstrating > competitiveness using open production models is the way to go. > > Having been through the PBRF rating system -- I must say that its a > pretty robust system based on peer review -- essentially peers > expressing a value judgment on the quality of the research output -- > and not so much the avenue's of dissemination and publishing of the > findings. However, there is still a quality bias for peer reviewed > journals that are typically published under full copyright :-(. > Fortunately this is changing -- > > See for example: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_research > > In particular do take a look at Athabasca Univeristy Press's Open > Access publishing initiative: > > http://www.aupress.ca/open_access.php > > This incorporates all the requirements of a traditional academic > publication -- but it is published under an open license. > > My suggestion is to start thinking smart here --- Why not use an open > research methodology where the research plan and early drafts of the > outputs are published openly on the wiki. Using a CC-BY license would > permit the final peer reviewed version of the "draft" to be published > under all rights reserved -- still meeting the requirements of > publishing in peer review journals. We can argue that the open drafts > are more akin to the research methodology ..... as long as we justify > this we're on strong ground :-). > > I was an academic in my previous life and am very keen to help out on > this challenge and connect folk with the open research movement. > > Cheers > Wayne > > > On May 27, 3:27 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Dialing in from Tasmania at the moment (where I have been spreading the > word > > of OER Wikis). > > > > Sarah's situation is the norm. Competition in research is unfortunately a > > global trend affecting the vast majority of disciplines. We are trying to > > turn that around one project at a time. > > > > In NZ, we have an incentive called the Performance Based Research Fund > > (PBRF). The government will award amounts of money to a researcher's > > institution based on their successfulness in getting their research work > > published in recognised ways. Many areas of research are highly > competitive > > - largely because of the duplication of research. If researcher goes > open, > > they may in fact discover their work is not unique, or that a competitor > is > > so similar so as to benefit from openness while themselves remaining > closed. > > This sort of free riding is common of course. > > > > What Peter suggests is sound I think. The open angle in research is a > > competitive edge at the moment and is assured to be unique (or easy to > gauge > > its uniqueness). Researchers should be helped to see that, but so too > should > > the people in charge of managing the incentives, like our PBRF. > > > > So, CoL could play a small part in trying to influence the measurements > used > > in things like PBRF.. something like extra credits for research conducted > in > > a open way. I wonder if CoL could secure funding for its own PBRF > > initiative? Awarding money to institutions and individuals who conduct > and > > publish research openly, along with all the other criteria around > quality, > > peer esteem etc. > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Randy Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > > With respect to this situation, I recommend that you do exactly what > you've > > > stated....and then some: > > > > > Let your colleague know that: > > > > > - You recognize that you are not the leader ~ that have come into it > as > > > a guest, so to speak. > > > - That the project is being led in Pakistan and for Pakistani > midwives. > > > > > - That you have explained all the pros and cons of open access ~ > but > > > that you do not feel that it is your place to dictate to your > Pakistani > > > colleagues, or anyone really. > > > - That you are respecting them, and how they conduct their > activities ~ > > > and while you are a wee bit disappointed, you will inform them with > relevant > > > information as it becomes available.....if they decide to come > onboard in > > > the future.... > > > - Be very gracious, and let them know that the door or window is > always > > > open for them to come onboard at a later date... > > > - Also let them know that since you have such open values.....that > you > > > will be trying to develop an unrelated small project with them (or > without > > > them) here so they can see how open access works (with a reduced > risk, > > > exposure, potential for embarassement, etc.) > > > - Let them know that you will communicate the merits, and advantages > of > > > developing materials within the wiki, and developments in other > areas that > > > could be of value to them, if they were to join our community. > > > - And, for now - also let them know that when you have funding > > > opportunities relative to this particular (open) project, or others > where > > > they can add value, that you will inform them accordingly. > > > > > The key is to be respectful and gracious, open and communicative ~ and > if > > > they don't come around today, then there's a pretty nice likelihood > that > > > they'll come around tomorrow. (Of course, while you both are doing your > > > part, we in the community are also doing our part to help sustain and > grow > > > our momentum. > > > > > Hope this helps! > > > > > - Randy > > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > >> Probably a dumb thought, but have you thought about a controlled wiki? > > >> You can still use the concept of a wiki but restrict access to only > those > > >> people you invite. I know it's not the same thing as WE. I've had to > do > > >> this when students contribute to meet the districts rules for privacy > for > > >> students. I use Wikispaces; it's free, and at least in the U.S. > they'll take > > >> the advertising off education sites. Not sure what the international > rules > > >> would be. At least it's sort of open access. > > > > >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Sarah Stewart < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> wrote: > > > > >>> Thank you for your answer, Peter. I know that my question goes > against > > >>> the nature of this community, and against my own personal beliefs, I > have to > > >>> say. > > > > >>> The problem is: I am not leading this project - I have come into it > as a > > >>> guest, so to speak. The project is being led in Pakistan and for > Pakistani > > >>> midwives. I have gone through all the pros and cons of open access > but I do > > >>> not feel it is my place to dictate it to my Pakistani colleagues. > > > > >>> Maybe the answer is to work through an unrelated small project with > them > > >>> here so they can see how open access works. Then , hopefully, they > will see > > >>> the advantages of developing their funding projects here. > > > > >>> best wishes, Sarah > > > > >>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >>>> Sarah, > > > > >>>> Welcome to WikiEducator. And it would seem you have quite the > > >>>> conundrum. In my opinion what you are asking goes completely against > > >>>> an OER / CC-BY-SA philosophy. A philosophy embedded in all that WE > > >>>> does. Asking a group of people who are committed to openness, WE and > > >>>> the CC-BY-SA approach to work toward protecting something for the > > >>>> purpose of gaining funding seems very skew. All this said, I can > also > > >>>> appreciate the competitiveness that you find yourself in and the > > >>>> importance of funding to keep this obviously important project > moving > > >>>> ahead. > > > > >>>> My first suggestion (if you want to draw on the WE resources > > >>>> available; infrastructure and people) is to abandon working in a > > >>>> competitive environment where secrecy is required for success. Have > > >>>> faith in the importance of the project, make the resources open from > > >>>> the start and put the other teams to shame with the quality of the > > >>>> work. If you do this I believe you will find funding from a source > > >>>> that is aligned with openness and non-secrecy. Secondly, I would > > >>>> consider approaching the research funding bodies with OER as a part > of > > >>>> your research approach; I believe this would be the differentiator > in > > >>>> winning the funding. I believe the funding body would be most > > >>>> interested in the impact of OER in midwifery education. Third and > this > > >>>> relates back to my first suggestion, start actively seeking funding > > >>>> agencies that are more aligned with OER approaches. > > > > >>>> Then of course your stupid question could be outweighed by my > > >>>> naivety… > > > > >>>> Peter > > > > >>>> On May 26, 11:43 pm, Sarah Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >>>> > Hello everyone > > > > >>>> > My name is Sarah Stewart (http://sarah-stewart.blogspot.com). I > am a > > >>>> > senior lecturer in midwifery at Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New > > >>>> > Zealand and a colleague of Leigh Blackall. I am a new member of > this > > >>>> > community and am enjoying learning all about wikieducator. > > > > >>>> > I have recently been in communication with a midwifery educator in > > >>>> > Pakistan and we are keen to collaborate on several e-learning > projects > > >>>> > together. I have suggested that we develop these projects on > > >>>> > wikieudcator so that we have access to the wider education > community > > >>>> > for support and ideas. However, she is reluctant to do that. There > is > > >>>> > a lot of competition in the area that she works in, especially > when it > > >>>> > comes to applying for research funding. She does not want to make > the > > >>>> > details of the projects public for fear of people using her ideas > and > > >>>> > beating her to the funding. Obviously, I have to respect that > > >>>> > standpoint. However, I feel it is really important that we > document > > >>>> > the development of this project, as it is an illustration of > social > > >>>> > networking and international collaboration that will benefit a > > >>>> > particular professional group. > > > > >>>> > My question to this group is: how can I utilize wikieducator to > > >>>> > record the the development of this project and make use of the > > >>>> > expertise available via wikieducator, yet honor the wishes of the > team > > >>>> > in Pakistan for 'secrecy'? Or is that such a stupid question > because > > >>>> > the answer is obviously 'you can't!'. > > > > >>>> > I'd be really grateful for your views and any advice on where to > go > > >>>> > from here. > > > > >>>> > Thank you, Sarah > > > > >>> -- > > >>> Sarah Stewart > > >>>http://sarah-stewart.blogspot.com > > >>> Skype: sarah.m.stewart > > >>> Twitter: SarahStewart > > > > > -- > > > ________________ > > > Randy Fisher - Facilitating Change and Designing Sustainable Ecosystems > to > > > Improve Performance- for People, Teams, Communities, and Organizations > > >http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Randyfisher > > > > > + 1 604.684.2275 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >www.hirerandy.com > > > > > Skype: wikirandy > > > > -- > > -- > > Leigh Blackall > > +64(0)21736539 > > skype - leigh_blackall > > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com > > > -- -- Leigh Blackall +64(0)21736539 skype - leigh_blackall SL - Leroy Goalpost http://learnonline.wordpress.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator, go to: http://www.wikieducator.org To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
