Even if we weren't in a recession, money is not an unlimited resource. The fair comparison is not between those in the class who pass and those who fail to get the research grant; But between those who applied for the class and those who applied for the grant.
WSC On 22 May 2012 20:45, Joe Corneli <holtzerman...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought this might be of interest particularly in light of the > recent conversations > here about academics vs wikipedians. - Joe > > Abstract > > Since access to research funding is difficult, particularly for young > researchers, we consider a change in approach: "We are the funding > opportunity!" I'll develop this idea further in the comments that > follow. This is an "open letter" to circulate to research mailing > lists which I hope will bring in new interest in the Free Technology > Guild. > > Keywords: research funding, postgraduate training > > A critique of the way research is funded > > Considering the historical technologies for doing science, it makes > sense that public funding for research is administered via a > competitive, hierarchical model. Science is too big for everyone to > get together in one room and discuss. However, contemporary > communication technologies and open practices seem to promise > something different: a sustained public conversation about research. > The new way of doing things would "redeem" the intellectual capital > currently lost in rejected research proposals, and would provide > postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers with additional learning > opportunities through a system of peer support. > > JISC recently ran an experiment moving in this direction (the "JISC > Elevator"), but the actual incentive structure ended up being similar > to other grant funding schemes, with 6 of 26 proposals funded > (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/blog/crowd/). It strikes me that if we saw the > same numbers in a classroom setting (6 pass, 20 fail), we would find > that pretty appalling. Of course, people have the opportunity to > re-apply with changes in response to another call, but the overheads > in that approach are quite high. What if instead of a winners-take-all > competitive model, we took a more collaborative and learning-oriented > approach to funding research, with "applicants" working together, in > consultation with funders -- until their ideas were ready? In the end, > it's not so much about increasing the acceptance rate, but increasing > the throughput of good ideas! Open peer review couldn't "save" the > most flawed proposals; nevertheless, it could help expose and > understand the flaws -- allowing contributors to learn from their > mistakes and move on. > > With such an approach, funding for "research and postgraduate > training" would be fruitfully combined. This modest proposal hinges on > one simple point: transparency. Much as the taxpayer "should" have > access to research results they pay for (cf. the recent of appointment > of Jimmy Wales as a UK government advisor) and scientists "should" > have access to the journals that they publish in (cf. Winston Hide's > recent resignation as editor of Genomics), so to do we as > citizen-scientists have a moral imperative to be transparent about how > research funding is allocated, and how research is done. Not just > transparent: positively pastoral. > > > The Free Technology Guild: a candidate solution > > Suppose someone needs to put together a team of four persons: a > programmer, a statistician, an anthropologist, and a small-scale > capitalist. This team would have the project to create a new social > media tool over the course of 3 months; the plan is to make money > through a subscription model. As an open online community for work on > technology projects, the Free Technology Guild > (http://campus.ftacademy.org/wiki/index.php/Free_Technology_Guild) > could help: > > * by helping the project designer specify the input/output > requirements for the project; > > * by helping the right people for the job find and join the project; > > * by providing peer support and mentoring to participants throughout > the duration of the project. > > Because everything is developed in the open (code, models, ethnography), > everyone wins, including downstream users, who can replicate the same > approach with any suitable changes "on demand". (And, in case things go > badly, those results can be shared too -- the broader community can help > everyone involved learn from these experiences in a constructive fashion.) > > > What is needed now > > We are currently building the FTG on a volunteer basis, but within the > year we hope to set up a service marketplace where we and others can > contribute and charge for services related to free/open technology, > science, and software. Although we have criticised the current mode of > research funding as inefficient, we would be enthusiastic about > contributing to grant proposals that would support our work to build a > different kind of system. But without waiting for funding to arrive, > we are actively recruiting volunteers to form the foundation of the > Free Technology Guild. We seek technologists, researchers, > organizational strategists, business-persons -- and > students/interns/apprentices in these fields and others. Together, we > can bootstrap a new way to do research. > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
