Dear Sarah , this is Leo from China , I have not read all the posts but really feel the same pain what you are experiencing especially in China , where people don't really pay attention to the copyrights ,and tried to steal your ideas , you have to be careful and learn how to protect yourself ,
However , a not very pratical idea is my own personal experience , we don't really do some very academic research ,something you can only read from the literature , I believe Midwife is a very practical one am I right ? but we are trying to build a TEAM ,to do reserach together , we learn from each other , and within the TEAM , Other people may copy our idea , but they could never copy our TEAM , sorry buddy , it is the way you survive , we share document , we share the ideas , but you have to have a very strong team to do things together , maybe one day they stole your idea , but next day we have another better one !! It is a very idealistic situation , but I think every College teacher or reseracher ,when they apply for the funds , it might be a another option or persepctive to think of , Trying to creat a good team rather than just some of excellent idea It seems matches with WE platform idea , So please steal my idea ,but Long live team !! Leo 2008/5/28 Leigh Blackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 > > > -- blog:http://leolaoshi.yo2.cn HELP项目https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
