Hey Leigh -- where are the good old day's when research was about the pursuit of new knowledge <smile>.
You're right -- it will be difficult to be "first to market" using an open research approach. I'm afraid I don't have any good ideas on how we can tackle this challenge --- its a tough one. I hope the list has some thoughts on moving this forward. Anyway ... one step at a time. At least with learning materials we don't necessarily have to deal with the first to market syndrome. Let's keep thinking about this ... there is a very strong connection between research and teaching. It's been my experience that many of the top researchers are excellent teachers -- by virtue of their enquiring a critical minds that can motivate and engage learners with a passion for discovery. Maybe the place to start is with the research icons who are nearing retirement and want to leave a legacy? Cheers Wayne On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 14:18 +1200, Leigh Blackall wrote: > 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 wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
