Open Knowledge in Higher Education (OKHE) - session 3
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•349 views
Session 3 of OKHE, part of the PG Cert in HE at The University of Manchester. Course materials available openly at https://medium.com/open-knowledge-in-he Slides combined from several presentations. © The University of Manchester, external presenters as applicable unless otherwise specified.
Report
Share
Open Knowledge in Higher Education (OKHE) - session 3
- 1. Open Knowledge in Higher Education PG Cert in HE #okhe okhe Facilitated by Simon Bains, Katy Woolfenden, Sam Aston & Chris Millson tinyurl.com/okhe16
- 2. Speakers for Wednesday 3 March 2016 Presenters Steven Hill Stephen Pinfield Panel Clive Agnew, Fiona Devine, Steven Hill, Steve Pettifer, Stephen Pinfield, Martin Weller tinyurl.com/okhe16
- 3. National OA policy Steven Hill Head of Research Policy Library PGCert, Manchester 2 March 2016 @stevenhill
- 4. • The national policy landscape • Finch Review/Government Policy • Open access mandates • Open data • Open access requirements for future REF • Future developments Summary
- 5. • The national policy landscape • Finch Review/Government Policy • Open access mandates • Open data • Open access requirements for future REF • Future developments Summary
- 6. Image of Willetts: BIS
- 7. “The principle that the results of research that has been publicly funded should be freely accessible in the public domain is a compelling one, and fundamentally unanswerable.” Motivations for OA Image: Public Domain
- 9. • Public-funded research should be freely available • Long-term preference for ‘gold’ open access • A mixed economy of ‘green’ and ‘gold’ OA is required in the transition UK OA policy framework
- 10. • RCUK • Journal articles and conference proceedings • Preference for ‘gold’ (inc. reuse permissions) • Block grant funding for Article Processing Charges • Embargo periods: 6/12 mo STEM, 12/24 mo AHSS • Wellcome Trust/COAF • Journal articles, conference proceedings and monographs • Preference for ‘gold’ (inc. reuse permissions) • Funding for Article Processing Charges • Embargo periods: 6 month • Higher Education Funding Bodies/REF Funder mandates
- 12. • The national policy landscape • Finch Review/Government Policy • Open access mandates • Open data • Open access requirements for future REF • Future developments Summary
- 13. • Open research is excellent research • Mandates are successful • £1.6 billion Open Access and the REF http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/
- 14. • Maximising the reach and impact of research we fund • Delivering a future that is ‘open by default’ • Not ‘distorting’ the system unilaterally and ideologically… • …but fixing some of the problems in the system Our aims
- 15. • Author engagement is essential • We must set clear and straightforward rules • We must be ambitious, but reasonable and flexible Our aims
- 16. • To be eligible for the next REF, journal articles and conference papers accepted after 1 April 2016 must be: o Deposited in a repository as the peer- reviewed manuscript (or better) o Made accessible for read and download after 12 months or 24 months The minimum requirements Full policy: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/
- 17. • Exceptions apply where deposit not possible / open access not possible etc • Benefits of OA should be extended beyond journals and conferences… • …and in the long run include broad reuse permissions A few more details… Full policy: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/
- 18. • Implementation and monitoring • Stability vs. harmony • Ambition vs. realism • Long-term trajectory for UK OA Challenges
- 19. • Author engagement is possible, but is challenging • HEIs want systems in place to notify of accepted papers • We have granted flexibility in Y1 to deal with this • Will review this autumn Pinch-point: deposit on acceptance
- 20. • The national policy landscape • Finch Review/Government Policy • Open access mandates • Open data • Open access requirements for future REF • Future developments Summary
- 21. • Monographs and long form outputs • ‘Technical review’ of REF implementation • Infrastructure developments: • Publications router • SHERPA REF The Future
- 22. • The national policy landscape • Finch Review/Government Policy • Open access mandates • Open data • Open access requirements for future REF • Future developments Summary
- 23. Thank you for listening s.hill@hefce.ac.uk @stevenhill openaccess@hefce.ac.uk
- 24. ‘Open’ Initiatives in Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Integrated Strategy Stephen Pinfield, University of Sheffield Work developed in collaboration with Sheila Corrall, University of Pittsburgh Originally based on work associated with the e-Infranet project, Report lead author Lilian van der Vaart, SURF
- 25. The Argument There is a strong ostensible case that the different ‘Open’ agendas... Which have to date largely been pursued separately by different communities of practice along parallel tracks… Share a number of common characteristics and potential benefits, which mean that… A more coordinated approach to their development could be useful within and beyond institutions… And this would create benefits for institutions in particular and the research community in general
- 26. Towards an Integrated Strategy 1. Background 2. Definitions, types and models of ‘Open’ 3. Fragmentation v. Integration 4. Components of integrated policy approaches 5. Discussion and questions on next steps ©Jisc and Matt Lincoln CC BY-NC-ND
- 27. Data Sources and Methods • Review of related literature – including published policy guidance and templates • Qualitative survey of institutional policies – limited to English-language information in public domain – intended to inform instrument development for large-scale international survey • Policy analysis via 5W1H problem-solving method – Why? What? When? Where? Who? How? questions used as sensitizing framework (Patton, 2002, p. 278)
- 28. ‘Open’ Agendas: Background • Open approaches are gathering momentum – bottom-up initiatives led by researchers, librarians, educationalists, and technologists – top-down drive by policy-makers and funders • Influences and instantiations are multifaceted – social, technological, economic, political, etc. • Multifarious movements at different stages – typically pursued within specialist communities – relatively few efforts to think and work holistically ? ** * * ** *** *
- 29. Definitions, Dimensions, Distinctions • Interpretations of ‘Open’ vary between and within different stakeholder and practitioner groups – especially in the commercial arena (e.g. Open Standards) and for emergent areas (e.g. Open Peer Review) • Some transfer concepts/terms from existing practice – Gratis and Libre “sub-species” of Open Access derived from Open Source Software community (Suber, 2012) • Others develop their own frameworks and meanings – 4 Rs of Open Educational Resources: Reuse, Revise, Remix, Redistribute (Wiley, 2010) • Focus may be on content (product) and/or process – e.g. OpenSource
- 30. Open: A Simple Overarching Definition “Open means ensuring that there is little or no barrier to access for anyone who can, or wants to, contribute to a particular development or use its output.” (e-Infranet, 2013, p. 12, adapted from CETIS)
- 31. A Typology of Open Open Type Open Domain Open Content Open access to research publications (OA) Open data Open educational resources (OER; including Open CourseWare, OCW) Open bibliography Open source software (OSS) Open Process Open development Open educational practices (OEP) Open peer review Open science/research Open innovation Open Infrastructure Open standards Open systems (Corrall & Pinfield, 2014, p. 298)
- 32. Open Types and Aims • Open content – making content of various sorts freely accessible and available for reuse e.g. publications, theses, dissertations, datasets, metadata, learning objects, computer code • Open process – carrying out academic or business processes in the public arena e.g. product/service innovation, software development, scientific work, peer review, pedagogical practices • Open infrastructure – creating an interoperable technical environment for education and research e.g. standards, systems
- 33. High-Level Open Typology Open Infrastructure Open Content Open Process Open Culture (Corrall & Pinfield, 2014, p. 299)
- 34. Fragmentation vs. Integration • Open domains at various stages of evolution – from ideas to maturity • Promoted by diverse communities of practice – often with little or no connection between them • Initiatives managed at different levels – institutional/consortial, national/international • Open types have shared theoretical foundation – commitment, principles • Open domains face similar practical issues – IPR, business models, sustainability • Institutions well placed to exploit synergies – operationally, tactically, and strategically
- 35. Convergence and Coherence of the ‘Opens’* • Shared ethical commitment • Shared “commitment to the unrestricted exchange of information and ideas”* • Operate under common economic principles • Efficacy • non-subtractive, non-depletable, cumulative nature of information and non- rivalrous nature of consumption of digital information objects • Economy of recognition – ‘competitive sharing’ • Business / funding models • Common characteristics • De facto interconnectedness Interacting with and extending Willinsky’s (2005)* analysis of commonalities between OA and OpenSource
- 36. Relationships and Culture • Different open domains overlap, support each other, and stimulate new forms of openness – open research data building on open access to publications and open source software – open educational resources using open source systems leading to shared pedagogies and peer learning • Dependencies and synergies among open domains indicate significance of coordination and culture “Where ‘open content’ is used and produced in ‘open processes’ within an open infrastructural setting, a culture of ‘openness’ gradually emerges” (e-InfraNet, 2013, p. 13)
- 37. Potential Shared Benefits • Visibility and impact • Reuse • Innovation and agility • Cost effectiveness • Quality enhancement • Reputation and trust Based on e-Infranet (2013); Corrall & Pinfield (2014); and the work of Jisc and SURF
- 38. An Evolving Model of Open Open Content Open Process Open Culture Open Infrastructure Policy interventions Policy interventions (Corrall & Pinfield, 2014, p. 301)
- 39. Policy Exemplars: Open Access • Shieber & Suber (2015) – provides a regularly updated and detailed overview of key issues • The Enabling Open Scholarship initiative has provided online guidance of good practice (EOS, n.d.) • The European University Association’s checklist is one of the most recent guides (EUA, 2015) • The OASIS project has provided online guidance (OASIS, 2012) • Harvard University Library, Office for Scholarly Communication: model policy (Harvard University Library, 2013) • The UNESCO report by Swan (2012) provides advice on forming a policy (and does also mentions other ‘opens’ e.g. OER) and also outlines a typology of policies • Early ‘What? Where? When? Why? How?’ advice from Stevan Harnad emphasising IRs (Harnad, 2006)
- 40. Policy Exemplars: Other Opens • Open Data: – Socrata guide to open data in general online (Socrata, n.d.) – Sunlight Foundation guide (Sunlight Foundation, 2014) • Open Educational Resources: – Creative Commons OER registry (Creative Commons, n.d.)
- 41. Policy Considerations – Why? • Policy rationale – institutional or other organisational level – Case for integration (as above) – Common benefits (as above) – Furthering the mission of the institution o Academic impact o Knowledge transfer / exchange o Societal impact • Incentives / Sanctions – motivations of different stakeholders – Especially the creation of incentives (and disincentives) for academic staff
- 42. Policy Considerations – What? • Scope – Open content only? ‘Open Knowledge’ policy o Types – e.g. publications: articles, chapters , books etc – Plus other Opens? ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Scholarship’ policy – Version(s) • Selection criteria – An Open policy does not necessarily mean all instances of a type are made open, there is likely to be selectivity o For immediate access o For long-term preservation o Exemptions, waivers (case-by-case, category) – Commercial confidentiality – Sensitivity (e.g. personal data) • Form – File types – for access, preservation o Proprietary o Standards o Accompanying files – Metadata Key question: Single policy v. Policy variation across the Opens?
- 43. Policy Considerations – When? • Timing of deposit and release • Embargoes – Publisher – Funder/Sponsor • ‘Timed release’ – Period – ‘On publication’
- 44. Policy Considerations – Where? • Institutional repositories – Repository infrastructure • Third-party repositories – Subject/disciplinary – Community • Publisher-based archiving • Storage locus v. access route
- 45. Policy Considerations – Who? • Stakeholders and their responsibilities – Principal Investigator – Author, creator – Head of Department/School – Support Services o Library o IT Services o etc • Governance processes – Oversight – Input o Research committee o Teaching and Learning committee o Ethics committees – Accountability
- 46. Policy Considerations – How? • Degrees of openness – Libre-Gratis spectrum – Licence conditions (CC-?) o Who owns the output? o Rights retention/transfer • Business processes, support, infrastructure • Policy ‘status’ – Aspirational – Mandatory – Variable Typology of Open Access Policies 1. Immediate deposit, no waiver 2. Rights-retention a. Authors assign sufficient rights to policymaker b. Policymaker already holds sufficient rights 3. Deposit within a certain period 4. Deposit if/when publisher permits 5. Voluntary (Swan, 2012)
- 47. Policy Development Issues • Authority and responsibility • Funding and sustainability • Quality assessment and control • Timeliness and coverage • Stakeholders and partnerships • Inclusions and limits
- 48. The Argument There is a strong ostensible case that the different ‘Open’ agendas... Which have to date largely been pursued separately by different communities of practice along parallel tracks… Share a number of common characteristics and potential benefits, which mean that… A more coordinated approach to their development could be useful within and beyond institutions… And this would create benefits for institutions in particular and the research community in general
- 49. References 1 • Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Retrieved from http://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/al/pdfs/BoyerScholarshipReconsidered.pdf • Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11-20. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/253/238 • Corrall, S., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Coherence of “open” initiatives in higher education and research: Framing a policy agenda. In Proceedings of the iConference 2014. iSchools. doi:10.9776/14085 • Creative Commons. (n.d.). OER Policy Registry/Supporting Documents. Retrieved from https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/OER_Policy_Registry/Supporting_Documents • e-InfraNet. (2013). e-InfraNet: “Open” as the default modus operandi for research and higher education. Retrieved from http://e-infranet.eu/output/e-infranet-open-as-the-default-modus-operandi-for-research- and-higher-education/ • EOS. (n.d.). Enabling open scholarship (EOS) - Formulating an institutional open access policy. Retrieved , from http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/c_6217/en/formulating-an-institutional-open-access-policy • EUA. (2015). EUA’s open access checklist for universities: A practical guide on implementation. Brussels: European Universities Association. Retrieved June 14, 2015, from http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/Open_access_report_v3.sflb.ashx • Harnad, S. (2006). Optimizing OA self-archiving mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How? Open Access Archivangelism Blog. Retrieved , from http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136- Optimizing-OA-Self-Archiving-Mandates-What-Where-When-Why-How.html
- 50. References 2 • Harvard University Library. (2013). Model open access policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Library, Office for Scholarly Communication. Retrieved from https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/modelpolicy • OASIS. (2012). Developing an institutional open access policy. Open access scholarly information sourcebook. Retrieved , from http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145&Itemid=298 • Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Peters, M., & Roberts, P. (2012). The virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. • Shieber, S., & Suber, P. (2015). Good practices for university open-access policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open- access_policies • Socrata. (n.d.). Open data field guide. Washington, DC: Socrata. Retrieved from http://www.socrata.com/open-data-field-guide/ • Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access • Sunlight Foundation. (2014). Open data policy guidelines. Washington, DC: Sunlight Foundation. Retrieved from http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/ • Swan, A. (2012). Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf • Wiley, D. (2010). The open future: Openness as a catalyst for an educational transformation.EDUCAUSE Review, 45(4), 14–20. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1040.pdf • Willinsky, J. (2005). The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First Monday, 10(8). http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v10i8.1265