/
Thomas Ryberg Thomas Ryberg

Thomas Ryberg - PowerPoint Presentation

mitsue-stanley
mitsue-stanley . @mitsue-stanley
Follow
372 views
Uploaded On 2016-08-11

Thomas Ryberg - PPT Presentation

  Professor mso Aalborg University Aalborg Denmark A Researchers Perspective  What do Researchers Need Challenges and Potential for Pure ryberghumaaudk tryberg twitter ID: 442315

researchers pure web research pure researchers research web individual streams social system researcher control networks increased collective people amp

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

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.


Presentation Transcript

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!