Professor mso Aalborg University Aalborg Denmark A Researchers Perspective What do Researchers Need Challenges and Potential for Pure ryberghumaaudk tryberg twitter ID: 442315
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Thomas Ryberg" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Thomas Ryberg | Professor mso | Aalborg University | Aalborg, Denmark
A Researcher's Perspective: What do Researchers Need? Challenges and Potential for Pure
ryberg@hum.aau.dk
| @
tryberg
(twitter)Slide2
AgendaA
critique of PURE reasoningSome web trends – sociale media & web 2.0How can
PURE
become
a
researcher’s
friend
and ressourceSlide3
DisclaimerNot necessarily a representative researcher
From the humanities – but born into the publish-or-perish tradition (regime) Interested in technologyResearch into creative use of social mediaWant ownership over systems
Do my own PURE registrations and like PURE (actually…)
My role today: Provoke, inspire, have a dialogue – any critique is well meant
Maybe I’m just a
weirdoSlide4
But how about you
How many are active
researchers?
How
many
have
been
researchers?
How many are experiencing resistance from researchers in terms of PURE?How many are in contact and collaborate with researchers around PURE?
3Slide5
A critique of pure reasoningSlide6
PURE as public knowledge base
”Research database is
publically
available
og delivers
knowledge
and
gains
to
local
enterprises
and research
activities
”
”The database
disseminates
AAUs
reseach
to society and the
individual
citizen
”
How PURE
was
described
once
in AAU (and it
was
a genuine
wish
from
our
library
)Slide7
PURE as control and surveillance of the employees
Extreme
control
and
overview
of
individual
researcher’s
production
Instrumentalisation
and
quanitification
Counting
machine
–
now
used
for
hiring
/firing and distribution of
money
internally
6 points to
become
associate
professor
– 75.000
DKK for a
level
2
paper
(
local
rules
) – bonus for
particularly
productive
researchersSlide8
Fear and insecurity
Thomas
lacks
2.5 points to attain this year’s minimum quota
Efficiency
to be increased by
145% to attain a professor
mso
78% of the employees produce
more
than Thomas
Thomas’ income (based on BFI) for AAU is
lousy
15.000 DKK
Thomas’ Publish-to-Perish-ratio is
0.25 (below 0.10 is perish)Slide9
AAU: Redundancies (firing)
ForskerForum 10. October:”Reason
for firing
people
is
that
the
dept
doesn’t generate enough money, so there’s a deficit compared to number of staff. Managements criteria have been an assessment
of the
individual
employee’s
competence
profilce
and performance:
Do
you
score
publication
points and
grants
?
” DJØF-union
rep
.
Jesper Lindgaard Christensen
. (
my
translation)So….Slide10
Clip from PURE at AAU
9
This
should
be
‘
grants
’ by the
way
….Slide11
General sentiment (not saying this is how
things are…but how
many
feel
they
are)"Paradoxically, the more that politics insists on the importance of the university, the more it actually drives the institution away from material realities and from democratic civil engagement... Management and control of knowledge has become more important than research, teaching or even thinking and living the good life together“ Thomas Docherty: "Universities at War“Increased “professionalisation” of management (hugely increased salaries, less contact with research and researchers, more managers) Increased political control, micro-management, research assessments, growth in numbers of employees in the administrative layer etc.
10Slide12
That is not PURE’s fault?No, but PURE and Elsevier important players in research policy as well
PURE is not neutral but the material basis for research assessment measures as Danish BFI and the likeOverview of the individual’s or departments ‘production’ – affects distribution of funding and therefor also research practiceMore work has been put into PURE as a counting and administrative device than as a system benefitting and empowering researchers
This is the managements’ priorities – as always – focused on solving problems of the administration itself rather than supporting core services…(said somewhat polemically
)Slide13
PURE 1.0
Rules for PURE:As researcher you need to spend time and enter correctlyIt is important you enter a lot of data – less important whether the data are useful for you
Data can be used against you based on opaque criteria outside your own control
Only what the system and management deem relevant in relation to your researcher identity may appear in the system – you are a number and a number of publications
We take you data and we present them to you (or those we think it is relevant that you see)
Prototype of an administrative
system
1.0
What are the web trendsSlide14
Web 2.0 and social mediASlide15
Trends: Personalisation and individualisations – yet inherently social
The individualised collectiveFrom consumer to producer – increased ownership and control for the individual userCrowdsourcing, collaboration, 2-way-communicationPersonal networks and streams of information & activitiesSlide16
Web 2.0 typology – Dalsgaard & SorensenDalsgaard, C., & Sorenson, E. (2008). A Typology for Web 2.0. In
Proceedings of ECEL 2008 (pp. 272–279). Presented at the ECEL 2008, Greece.
But these happen across different levels of scale from individual to collective
Web
Organizing communicative processes
Networking and awareness-making
Text forums
Chat
Video phone
Person-centred social networking sites
Networked weblogs
Micro-blogging
Weblogs
Podcasts
Wikis
Application sharing services
Object-centred social networking sites
Social bookmarking
Creating
Sharing
Dialoging
Organizing resourcesSlide17
Sociale konstellationer – nye arkitekturer for læring
GroupWell known members
,
strong
ties,
mutual
dependency
NetworkLooser constellation of people, come-and-go CollectivesTag-clouds, Google Search Rank, aggregations of activities
Researcher in
middle
–
creation
of
transparency
between
the
levels
Picture taken from: (
Andersson
, 2008)
http://terrya.edublogs.org/2008/03/17/networks-versus-groups-in-higher-education/Slide18
Challenge (the center does not hold)
ICT enables multiple interactions across levels of scale – and
horisontally
New arenas for finding and contributing knowledge
Supporting people in making sense of the bits and pieces
But important to support the continuous traversing of scaleSlide19
Creation of Personal Learning NetworkIndividual in the center of self-generated
personal networks – connections
to
groups
,
networks
and
collectives
Streams of information and activities come from the networked collectiveContent depends on the network composition – whom are
you
connected
to
Facebook News-
feed
,
Diigo
,
Twitter
, Researchgate, Academia.eduSlide20
Delicious.com, Diigo.com or Mendeley
Online representation of bookmarks / favouritesShare, connect to and explore others’ bookmarksEasily monitor what your network bookmarks – or see what’s popular, or browse particular ‘tags’
Creating streams of potentially relevant materialSlide21
Lifestreaming – microblogging - Twitter.com
Microblogging tool - 140 chars tweets (status updates)Follow people – but not necessarily both ways – Lance Armstrong, Howard Rheingold etc.
Create focused streams around
hashtag
(e.g. #
openaccess
#
iranelection
)Use: Keep updated through creation of professional networkFocused streams for events #ThisorThatEvent?Slide22
PURE: is just a friend you haven’t metSlide23
Characteristics of social media
Ownership– own profile – strong
personal
or
professional’presence
’
User as
co
-producerPrivatisation & collectivisationPlay, creativity– mix of formal and informalFrom ’smaller’ communities to networks and collectivesStructure and connections
are
created
through
aggregation
of
uncoordinated
actions
Sharing
of
own
and
other’s
content
(
music
,
pictures
, data-sets, papers, bookmarks,
tweets) Co-ownership in terms of relevance –
collective as editor (folksonomi)Very individual
as well as collectiveSocial filtrering through
a network (good bookmarks,
paper
recommendations
,
videoes
)
Direct and
automated
recommendation
from the
collectiveSlide24
Challenges and potentials for PURE
The fundamental problem: PURE a system decided top-down and
fundamentally
adopted
for
surveillance
and
control …the very anti-thesis to web 2.0 (sort of….) – but it has become better Increased attention to: Researcher focus – what do researcher need
and
how
can
you
empower
them
How
can
PURE
make
life
easier
(
good
existing
examples: publications
connected to projects, RSS-feeds on publications)
Autonomy, ownership, co-producer, opportunities
for import/exportVisualisation of networks and relations,
connecting to othersHandle streams of information and
activities
from
other
networks
and
collectives
(new)
connections
between
between
people
and
between
people
and
content
–
recommendations
, ’
awareness
’ of
other’s activiesSlide25
Resarchgate.net & Academia.eduCompetition
to PURE and to institutional repositories at large – spurious
business model (but so
are
publishers
business models)
I
don’t use them very actively – still I am logged in several times a week…Connections to other researchers – streams of information (
papers
,
questions
, potential
connection
)
Satisfying
academic
vanity
– mail-
updates
,
statistics
– So
many
have downloadet,
read
,
interacted
with
your research or searched
for you on Bing, Google etc.Problem – partial and somewhat
haphazard network (yet international)
Heavily focused on the needs of researchers over those
of the institution or the administrationSlide26
PURE 2.0
I can connect to other researchers that I work with or I’d like to followI have greater ownership of profile and the information on the page and I can export/import to e.g.
linkedin
or the
liket
I can integrate content from elsewhere (
Slideshare
, delicious,
bibsonomy, Zotero, wordpress) – blog posts, tweet-streamI can ‘favorite’/’read later’ a colleagues paper, so I can maintain my own to-read list (which others can see)I can click tags/keywords and find similar papers – across institutions evenI get a message when there are new papers within my area (I have created my own
ifttt
alert for PBL)
I get suggestions for publications and persons I might find interesting
Most importantly: I
get the feeling that PURE is a system for me, and not that I am there for the system – a cog in the machineSlide27
Thank you!