This is a great concept - responsible for your own not-knowing.

This discussion reminds me of a few episodes of season one of the podcast Revisionist History by Malcolm Gladwell. He discusses philanthropy, university grants and how different models can support either 1) a few geniuses or 2) many average people. Here is a link to what I think is the correct episode (but it's worth listening to them all to get to the point, if you're interested in the topic of educational equity. Also: it is definitely just an amazing podcast!)

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/06-my-little-hundred-million

This is a super interesting analysis - two different (failed) paradigms. I think that is very astute, and needs to be clear in any work going forward. the "old fashioned" meritocratic elitism of the academy wasn't working, but the "new" competitive, privatized version is not improving things.

Exactly. The business argument never makes sense to me. Corporate models are designed to enrich a few people in powerful positions, not to deliver a public service without a concern for profit. The one model cannot possibly achieve the other goal effectively.

This is the source of my "pessimism" about the open knowledge project. At the same time, it is the reason that I think working on changing the paradigm should be the ethical imperative of all academics. I don't think the market economy will sort out open access in the end - massive policy change is necessary.

Once again, so much comes down to societal sorting and exclusion.

This is absolutely a very real possibility, I think.

This suggests a whole new set of problems that relate to the elitism of academia.

Historian Jill Lepore also addressed the situation of academic settings in a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education recently:

"Like any Ph.D. program, what you’re being trained to do is employ a jargon that instantiates your authority in the abstruseness of your prose. You display what you know by writing in a way that other people can’t understand. That’s not how I understand writing. Writing is about sharing what you know with storybook clarity, even and especially if you’re writing about something that’s complicated or morally ambiguous."

Important words about words!

The whole article is here: https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Academy-Is-Largely/245080

This is fantastic! I love the idea of an engine of generosity!

I've just recently starting thinking about how important this is. It's hard to find the right balance between being academic snobbery and knowledge hoarding. It's hard to figure out how to not be a know-it-all and still share what you know. As someone who emphatically believes in every person's right to make their own decisions about their lives, it's difficult to figure out how to speak up or offer alternatives without telling people they're wrong.

This is a significant problem as a humanities researcher. Funding is already sadly inadequate, and that trend can just continue without structural changes, as discussed here. In education, it seems so important to make research available to professionals; there is already a wide divide between research and practice, and open access could be important to bridging that gap. But funding...

This is super important - it leans toward opening up the whole research process rather than just the dissemination of results.

This seems like an important point. In the same way that one would target a specific journal as the author of a research paper, it is important in public dialogues to also be more specific about our audience and collaborators in other contexts.

This is perhaps the most important of these goals - opening up the elite and exclusionary institution to people of all incomes and abilities.

This is such a scary statement, and unfortunately all too true. A Pew Research Center Poll from 2017 found that a majority (58%) of Republican voters in the US believed that higher education institutions have a negative impact on society. That type of public opinion has to have an effect on funding of public institutions, which in turn makes them less able to serve the public need, and therefor less attractive. A little blurb on this from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/07/11/republicans-increasingly-say-higher-education-has-a-negative-impact-on-the-u-s-infographic/#31187fd35774

Perhaps a deeper problem is the question of why institutions don't find the arguments about scholarship and research to be compelling enough?

This seems to be the common thread through the literature and research in this area. For-profit publishing primarily benefits publishers.

This brings up so many interesting possibilities for democratization of knowledge.

I think this is a super important issue regarding open access and increased public availability of research. A great deal of the potential for increased access is related to the internet, which, in affluent communities in the global north, it is easy to forget, is far from inclusive of everyone!

This is an interesting question, and the framing/wording of it is very revealing. "The system" is a tool or structure created by humans, and ostensibly under their control. This sentence gives "the system" a lot of agency, as it if it is a sort of creature that begins acting of its own will. Which, indeed, often seems to become the case with such endeavors. Basically, we need to remind ourselves that we are in control of regulating what we have created, rather than powerless against it!

Yes.

Or, perhaps more accurately, "are provided free of charge by taxpayers." Scholarly publication and peer review are both recognized as a part of the picture for tenure and promotion. So scholars do the work as one aspect of their academic career, financed through public funding.

I like the symmetry of this description of collaborators.

Health and mental health. For an interesting critique of the globalization of psychiatry and the accompanying loss of localized and culturally meaningful ways of dealing with mental health issues, a great read is Crazy Like Us by Ethan Watters.

http://www.simonandschuster.ca/books/Crazy-Like-Us/Ethan-Watters/9781416587095

This is an amazing name!!

I was recently looking through the submission guidelines for an autism research conference I was considering attending, and ran across these two conditions:

1. Any work with human or animal subjects reported in the abstract complies with the guiding policies and principles for experimental procedures endorsed by the National Institutes of Health.
2. Each author has given consent to appear as an author. Each author will automatically receive notice of abstract submission, and will be able to view it at any time.

I'm pretty sure these are standard phrasing for conflict of interest, ethics, and protection of intellectual property, so it is not this particular conference I am commenting on, but the general attitude toward the different actors it describes, that is common to most such conferences.

Persons with ASD diagnoses are "human subjects," protected from being damaged in the same way animal subjects are, but only researchers' / authors' knowledge and insights are valued. It is presumed, I suppose, that the human subjects had signed their rights away in their informed consent document before participating in the research, and therefore do not need to be considered. I wonder, though, if one can actually assume that everyone participating in social science research is truly and meaningfully "informed" of the way that their bodies and behaviors are transformed into someone else's property.

This, as well, is definitely an example of knowledge asymmetry, and "human subjects" are often being "pushed... further down in the oblivion."

And (dis)ability.

This reminds me of international research in education comparing the results of different countries (PISA, for instance), which tends to cause countries to lose local perspective and focus on their rank without questioning the legitimacy of those types of measures.

This is a super important factor. Research (and research funding) tends to become quite conservative as a result.

Fantastic metaphor! The distinction between "excellence" and "quality" is really very interesting and thought provoking.

I worked for a private international education institution where our students were exchange students from US universities. They had access through their home institution, so my workplace doesn't bother with the prohibitively expensive subscriptions just for faculty. It was a nightmare to try and get our hands on research and articles to keep up to date with our fields. There are many workplaces where access to research is relevant but not realistic at current costs.

I think there is a potentially problematic ethical question here.

Science research is publicly funded, and now also subsidized by volunteers that are ostensibly also taxpayers. Now there is a double imperative to ensure that participants are getting something meaningful out of the process.

This is so true! However, in order to be effective, they also have to be affordable. Many museums have entrance fees that are much too expensive for many families to visit with, for instance, two adults and two children. Or if they do, it is a very unique occurrence, where the most impact would be gained from regularly visiting a museum and becoming comfortable being in the museum environment, as well as with the information / experiences it offers.

This is another aspect of access and public participation that has to be considered.

Yes, with regard to public understanding of science, this (and the curriculum initiatives) seems to have the greatest potential impact.

This seems really important, too. The nature of science education in schools generally includes much too little hands-on learning and actual, meaningful science discovery.

This actually seems like a rather meaningful finding - realizing there is a lot you do not (yet) know is extremely important learning, but it also indicates that there is more work to be done - citizen science may increase people's science knowledge, but it may also potentially increase their desire to learn more, if the appropriate opportunities were available.

This presents a new dilemma: research in topics that happen to be trending at any given moment are then given a boost in their appearance of impact, rather than the impact or importance of the research causing the trending of the article.

Once again: really?! Is this really how we want to determine which research gets done / results get published?

The irony of this particular situation is also delightful. We want to evaluate the quality (rather than quantity) of dissemination of ideas. But we don't have time or resources to do a thorough investigation because we have to get our data out there as quickly as possible, because quantity is more important than quality of ideas disseminated.

I think this may be the central point made in this article - the complexity is nicely illustrated by considering law scholarship generally (as a living and constantly negotiated field), indigenous law within and in relation to that framework, and the complexities within even one aspect of indigenous law.

I think this is important. We never hear the woman's voice or explanations about the snakes and the tree, or about why she wants to kill her son.

I think this is a general challenge regarding the focus of state laws (which are what I am most familiar with), and the accompanying social / legal supports - there is an overemphasis on identifying and punishing violence and not enough on the factors that produce vulnerability.

I really appreciate that the first interpretation presented here focuses on the vulnerability aspect, and that it is a more holistic view of the structural, social and systemic pieces that contributed to producing vulnerability.

To me it seems related to the "human rights" that were presented in the legal codes earlier in the chapter. Maybe a simplified way of stating the difference could be that they are examples of a preventative rather than punitive focus?

This is an important point about methodologies of all types. Analytic frameworks can (hopefully) be used to think through something, not to get a prescribed outcome. And I like the next point here, too - that these tools will be taken up by persons who find them useful and meaningful in their own contexts.

I'm really intrigued by this view of rights that appears in different forms in several of the excerpts of legal codes presented here. The only other place I recall having seen this type of wording is in the UN convention on the rights of the child. I think it is such an important and fundamental difference in the way societies perceive what basic human rights (and justice) should be, and can shape the way one thinks about many different issues.

This is such an interesting point, relevant to all patriarchal contexts.

Interesting how "the sacred" (or spirituality or religion) can be used to promote and support oppressive discourses across so many different contexts.

There are so many layers and possibilities for understanding presented here! I feel like the last few pages began to build a complex, multidimensional framework for understanding. Then, this sentence shows the danger of deflating such potential by "freezing and romanticizing the past," rather than seeing culture / law / the past as a living and dynamic process.

Yes! This is an important, and not infrequently forgotten, aspect of the discussion.

I think this is an important shift in a lot of discussions and/or research - not only about culture. But yes, very relevant here. Probably good to remember in a lot of situations that "generalization" is not only a contrast to "specificity," but also to "nuance."

And here is a dilemma. Social psychology studies indicate that talking about wealth, income and social status are such taboos that class differences and inequalities are rendered invisible to those in privileged positions and the perspectives of those who may experience class inequality are often silenced.

Could it be that it is in the interests of university communities to keep the privileged status of their students invisible to them, ie. it is an existential threat to the university to expose to students the societal inequalities that produce selective post-secondary institutions?

This is interesting and a complex problem to address.

These are super important points. "Helping" is a problematic concept that can easily become patronizing and humiliating rather than empowering and helpful. Which is kind of the opposite of what is hoped to be achieved with service programs.

I feel this is definitely still an issue.

I feel there is also a problem with methodological snobbishness or hierarchy here. The types of research methodologies that encourage true collaboration are often viewed as not as rigorous or valid.

I think this research would be fantastic! It would be really interesting to have a bit more in depth understanding of how the vague and unspecified guidelines were being carried out (and challenged), as well as investigating some issues like the gender difference in service areas.

What? This just gets more and more ridiculous! How can organizations that call themselves research institutions have been so poor at doing their homework?

That's actually what I cynically expected might be the case with the word community!

Taken together with the limited view of what "public" service seems to include (primarily service to the university), this makes the whole system seem even more self-focused.

Does that mean that participation in collegial governance is what is being called public service?

If so, that also indicates an even more limited scope and benefit to the public of what is considered service. That seems to be more a service to the university.

So this must mean there is a more general or even university-wide policy? That seems unwieldy and inexact. I feel like there would be very different relevant criteria for different disciplines.

I think this is an important discussion - on the one hand, I think it's imperative to include this type of metric in some way, but on the other hand it's important that research recognition and dissemination doesn't begin to be evaluated by how many likes it gets (I realize that is a simplification). There is plenty of that going around already, as we have discussed in class. And, the for people to share / believe / spread things on social media without having read them is also a concern in this discussion.

Is there a difference across disciplines, I wonder?

i think this is a concept that is in itself problematic. What is public effectiveness and who is defining it?

This approach (while I am mindful of the critical points others have brought up about legitimacy, etc.) is an admirable attempt to create a more meaningful connection to community.

It reminds me of community psychology, which is an attempt to create a more participatory and holistic way of dealing with social challenges that communities face.

A short article about a project in Guatemala: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.5011&rep=rep1&type=pdf

What about the dogma of what constitutes evidence?

And between disciplines, if one wants to carry this argument into areas other than climate policy.

an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.

I also heard an interesting bit on CBC Early Edition, Thursday Sept 20 with Jacinda Mack from Stand For Water. They were discussing the increasing / changing role of indigenous voices in influencing energy projects; the expectation that projects will be allowed to continue whether or not there is a meaningful attempt to engage and compromise is being challenged, and as a result there is a growing realization (acceptance??) that actual change and compromise is needed.

There is only a link to the whole show, unfortunately, not that segment alone: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1325197891970

This is definitely not specific to environmental policy. Educational policy has the same tendency - research and evidence gets picked up as it suits particular purposes, often having to do with budgetary constraints.

Like Jevin West was saying in his talk about correlation does not equal causation. Which is another potential discussion in policy decisions and evidence base.

Some governments?? I'd say more likely all governments (and all parents, all school administrators, all decision makers). I think this is a super important discussion - because all science and evidence is ultimately connected to social (and ideological) processes, just like anything else. It's all constructed by humans, using tools created by humans, and therefore reflects humans and their interests (which I mean in both senses of the word, in this case). The search for clean, pure evidence is an empty quest.

I think this is so important - and so hard - as a researcher. We want the importance of our findings to be self-evident. Relates to his point in the interview above: No one thinks your research project is as interesting as you do.

So publishers were digging their own graves. Or creating crisis that demanded innovative action.

Not only greater understanding of the world, but support the understanding and dialog with more of the world.

This is a interesting thought - and leads in several potential directions.

Hm. Don't ask questions you may not want to know the answer to.

Fantastic analysis!

I think this family of fallacy seems to be particularly prevalent in today's politics (especially, but not limited to, US politics).It shows up both in the political arguments and claims made, as well as being part of the deep polarization.

This reminds me of the ongoing discussion in the US media about how to characterize the many untrue statements made by Donald Trump. There is a general reluctance (seems to be diminishing with time) to use the word "lie" - not just with Trump. Here is a link to a discussion about the alternative words from NPR back in 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2017/01/26/511798707/the-pros-and-cons-of-nprs-policy-of-not-calling-out-lies

Getting away with what he says or getting what he wants.

I think there may be something here in the relationship of the parties. We wouldn't be able to "bullshit" someone who knew us well or intimately. That would be lying.

Also, we would definitely try to bullshit our way through an interview or an exam essay, but would not lie. Unless we were stating an untrue opinion because we were afraid our true feelings would be judged negatively, which again comes back to the relationship question.

Indeed - it depends on an underlying agreement that everyone realizes it's not the truth.

I also think it takes a whole lot of complicity from the audience. Most everyone knows that campaign promises are empty and that buying that car won't really make them attractive and outdoorsy, but tend to accept the "truth" of both. Primarily if it supports the way we think - or wish - things were.

I don't know if I agree with this - the orator does care what the audience thinks about these things, just not in the sense of whether s/he cares if they believe them to be objectively true. But if they are trying to "convey a certain impression of himself," then they care deeply about how the audience is going to perceive the statements. Humbug is in this sense perhaps a situation where the orator and audience know that the statements are perhaps not true, but agree to disregard this as beside the point of the speech.

"the use of more words than are necessary to express an idea" e.g. burning fire

"Clearly expressed and easily understood"