159 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2019
    1. caliphate

      A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة‎ khilāfa) is a state ruled by an Islamic leader known as a caliph. This is a person considered a religious successor to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, and a leader of the entire muslim community.

    2. A smartphone app that the group had created allowed fans to follow along easily at home and link their social-media accounts in solidarity, permitting isis to post automatically on their behalf

      Wow.

  2. repository.isls.org repository.isls.org
    1. “parallel linked systems” where the discussion forum and artifact are presented side-by-side on the screen, and then linked visually via hyperlink. In these parallel linked systems, the distance between discussion and text is less than in traditional threaded discussion forums,
    1. When you want something really bad, you will put up with a lot of flaws. But if you do not yet know you want something, your tolerance will be much lower.

      This is so, so true.

    1. 9 corporate storytelling themes that get people talking and listening
      1. Anxieties (what is the audience concerned about, how does this product or service address those fears)
      2. Contrarian (is there a controversy that should be addressed)
      3. Personal stories (how can I give a personal voice to the story, what human-interest points are there)
      4. Counterintuitive (can I pull back the curtain to reveal that things are not as they seem)
      5. David vs. Goliath (are we a small player pitted against a giant, and are likely to win)
      6. Aspirational (what’s the big hairy audacious goal)
      7. Avalanche about to roll (nobody likes to miss out on something big, how can I convey that in the organizational story)
      8. How to (what are the practical steps or lessons to impart)
      9. Glitz and glam (is there a celebrity angle, a wow factor)
    1. Appendix A. The survey instrument
    2. they did notparticularly value the comments of their peers. Moreover, students'perceptions of learning in this class depended upon their sense ofcommunity: when the sense of community was higher, studentsreported higher levels of learning and vice versa. Sense of communityemerged as a significant predictor of perceived learning, with higherlevels of community being related to higher levels of perceivedlearning.

      key finding

    3. Teachingpresence includes three areas: design, facilitation, and directinstruction (Garrison & Akyol)
    4. one of the most influential definitions of sense of communityis the one advanced byMcMillan and Chavis (1986):“a feeling thatmembers matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faiththat members' needs will be meet through their commitment to betogether”(p.9)
    5. social constructionof knowledge, which happens by means of sharing knowledge,asserting different perspectives and interpretations, and critiquingviewpoints (Leslie & Murphy

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. 273Slack = Communication Threads...Organizing Information by Channel Topic...•32% Decline in Email Usage•24% Reduction in Employee Onboarding Time•23%Faster Time to Market For Development Teams•23% Decline in Meetings•10% Rise in Employee SatisfactionSlack Benefits

      fascinating

    2. Learners

      i love this

    3. Economic Growth Drivers

      fascinating

    4. 79%Willing to Share Personal Data For ‘Clear Personal Benefit’>66%Willing To Share Online Data With Friends & Family

      wow.

    5. Facebook / Instagram

      interesting... so much lower than the rest

    6. Most Desired Non-Monetary Benefit for Workers =Flexibility per Gallup

      wow

    7. 148New Technologies =Job Concerns / Reality Ebb + Flow Over Time

      This is really fascinating. Does the same thing happen with New Technology Optimism?

    8. 12 vs. 8 Years (1995)

      This, at least, is sort of encouraging.

    9. 38% Flagged by Algorithms

      Interesting that the algorithms are so much less effective at identifying hate speech. Is this because it's less of a priority for FB, or because hate speech is simply more complex than other kinds of flagged content.

    1. aesthetic that has emerged in response to media convergence—one that places new demands on consumers and depends on the active partici-pation of knowledge communities. Transmedia storytelling is the art of world making.

      Transmedia storytelling

    2. fective economics" encourages companies to transform brands into what one industry insider calls "lovemarks" and to blur the line between entertainment content and brand mes-sages

      Affective economics - branded content/sponsored content

    3. ck Box Fallacy. Sooner or later, the argument goes, all media content is going to flow through a single black box into our living rooms (

      black box fallacy

    4. isa Gitelman, who offers a model of media that works on two levels: on the first, a medium is a technology that enables communication; on the second, a medium is a set of associated "protocols" or social and cultural practices that have

      Media (from Lisa Gitelman):

      1. technology that enables communication
      2. set of associated protocols, or social or cultural practices, that grow up around that technology
    5. onvergence, I mean the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want. Con
    6. nvergence culture, where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways.
    1. if you look at how people use the word `truth' in theirpublic discussions, you see that they in fact use it to mean `what mycommunity thinks'. It's a moral term: we use it to make a claim abouthow peopleshouldthink. I

      i.e. Trump's "fake news"

    2. Using this word implies a post-structuralistapproach to culture ± trying to work out how cultures make sense ofthe world, not so we can judge them against our own culture, and notto seek out deep truths across cultures, but to map out and try tounderstand the variety of different ways in which peoples can makesense of the world.

      why we use the term "text"—and not some other word—when doing meaning analysis

    3. Apost-structuralistapproach: all these cultures do indeed makesense of the world differently: and it is impossible to say that oneis right and the others are wrong. In a sense, people from differ-ent cultures experience reality differently.

      post-structuralist: people from different cultures make sense of and experience reality differently; no one culture is better than the others.

    4. Astructuralistresponse: all these cultures seem to be makingsense of the world differently; but really, underneath, they havecommon structures. They're not all that different; people acrossthe world are basically the same.

      structuralism: belief that all cultures are built on shared structures; they have the same basic building blocks but use them in different ways.

    5. Arealistresponse: my culture has got it right. It simply describesreality. Other cultures are wrong

      realism: belief that one's own culture is the only correct way of knowing.

    6. A text issomething that we make meaning from
    7. When we perform textual analysis on a text, we make an educatedguess at some of the most likely interpretations that might be madeof that text

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. indexing hyp~thesis,~~ news professionals tend to “index” the range of viewpoints according to the range of views expressed in the mainstream government debate
    2. personal attributions were categorized into one of five causes: Making a bad choice, Broken family, Lack of education, Physical conditions, and lmmigration

      Where did these come from? Previous research? A hunch?

    3. News media are often criticized for reducing important social issues to mere individual-level problems

      Reasons why news coverage of social issues tends to skew individual-level:

      1. American culture is individualistic
      2. Societal approaches/solutions seen as too radical (economically, political)
      3. News coverage tends to be episodic, focusing on the individual
    4. The discussion of responsibility involves two conflicting views.

      Two conflicting views of responsibility attributions:

      1. societal: social or structural issues are at the heart of the problem, and need to be addressed through social forces (e.g. policies, business practices, laws, etc)
      2. individual: social problems are largely caused by individual deficiencies; change efforts tend to focus on modifications of problematic behaviours
    5. Attributions of responsibility can be categorized into two types: causal and treatment responsibilities

      Causal responsibility: what/who is the source of the problem Treatment responsibility: who has the power or the responsibility to alleviate the problem

    6. internal and external factors of news organizations that may affect how journalists frame a given issue.I3 First, social norms and cultural values can affect the way an issue is framed.

      Factors that influence frame building:

      1. social norms and cultural values
      2. organizational pressurs and constraints
      3. pressures from interest groups
      4. professional routines
      5. characteristics of individual journalists
    7. Organizational pressures and constraints

      Organizational pressures: e.g. political orientation or view of the publisher, or economic pressures

    8. rame building captures what roles are played by social and structur- al factors in the media system and by the characteristics of individual journalists in influencing the production and modification of frames
    1. Young people today, never having experienced the era in which progress reigned unchallenged, are more likely to be opposed rather than ambivalent.

      Has anyone done a more recent framing study that considered age or other demographics when analyzing framing effects?

    2. SURVEY DATA ON NUCLEAR POWER

      Comparing survey data (i.e. individual/public opinion) with news coverage (media framing)

    3. , journalists look for "pegs"-that is, topical events that provide an opportunity for broader, more long-term coverage and commentary

      Pegs: key topical events that journalists use to provide broader coverage and commentary about an ongoing issue. Aka "critical discourse moments" (Chilton, 1987)

    4. if packages and their elements are essential tools, then it makes a considerable difference that some are more readily available than others. Making sense of the world requires an effort, and those tools that are developed, spotlighted, and made readily accessible have a higher probability of being used

      i.e. the most available and accessible frames are the most likely to influence public opinion

    5. While an indi- vidual columnist is not expected to provide more than one package, a range of "liberal" and "conservative" commentators are used to observe this norm

      Balance Norm, a media practice that influences framing

    6. metaphors, catchphrases, visual images, moral appeals, and other symbolic devices that characterize this discourse

      Interpretive packages: the clusters of metaphors, catchphrases, visual images, moral appeals, and other symbolic devices that characterize the discourse around a policy issue, giving meaning to relevant events.

    7. deas and language resonate with larger cultural themes. Resonances increase the appeal of a package; they make it appear natural and familiar.

      Cultural resonances: ideas or language within an interpretive package that resonate with larger cultural themes, increasing the appeal of the package.

    8. Packages frequently have sponsors, interested in promoting their careers. Sponsorship is more than merely advocacy, in- volving such tangible activities as speech making, interviews with jour- nalists, advertising, article and pamphlet writing, and the filing of legal briefs to promote a preferred package

      Sponsor activities: speech making, interviews with journalists, article and pamphlet writing, etc to promote a specific package, usually based off of some collective agenda. Sponsors could be organizations, political parties, activists, companies, etc and often employ PR specialists.

    9. . Journalists' working norms and practices add consid- erable value to the process

      Media practices: journalists' working norms and practices that add value to the process of constructing interpretive packages

    10. Media packages.-We suggested earlier that media discourse can be conceived of as a set of interpretive packages that give meaning to an issue. A package has an internal structure. At its core is a central organiz- ing idea, orframe, for making sense of relevant events, suggesting what is at issue
    11. Each system interacts with the other: media discourse is part of the process by which individuals construct meaning, and public opinion is part of the process by which journalists and other cultural entrepreneurs develop and crystallize meaning in public discourse.

      Media discourse (framing) and public opinion are parallel processes: each informs the other, but the relationship should not be seen as causational

    12. e. Individuals bring their own life histories, social interactions, and psychological predispositions to the process of con- structing meanin

      Framing is influenced by individual predisposition or schemas

  3. Dec 2018
    1. ayesian topic mod-els, the most popular such models today are variants of Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA, Bleiet al., 2003b), which provides a way to automatically discover latent or implicittopicsin otherwiseunstructured collections of text
    2. Recasens et al. (2013) draw a related distinction betweenframing bias, which involves explicitlysubjective words or phrases linked with a particular point of view, andepistemological bias, whichinvolves implicit assumptions and presuppositions in ostensibly neutral writing.)
    3. Policy Frames Codebook
    4. process by which a political scientist or communications scholar identi es the catalogue of frames ina political discourse about a particular issue (frame discovery)
    1. precision and recall,

      Precision = True Positives ÷ (True Positives + False Positives)

      • High precision = few false positives identified
      • Low precision = many false positives identified

      Recall = True Positives ÷ (True Positives + False Negatives)

      • High recall = few false negatives
      • Low recall = many false negatives identified

      https://nlpforhackers.io/classification-performance-metrics/precision-recall/ https://medium.com/@klintcho/explaining-precision-and-recall-c770eb9c69e9

    2. Political issues can often be complex, contentious, anddifficult to understand. One way of making sense of theseissues, and the different positions that one can take onan issue, is to think about the frames that structure de-bate about the issue. Frames help organize facts and in-formation. They help define what counts as a problem,diagnose the problem’s causes, and suggest remedies forsolving the problem. These ways of thinking have lots ofdifferent parts, including stereotypes, metaphors, images,catchphrases, and other elements.

      Non-academic definition of framing

    1. the most dominant topics and recurrent phrases in the corpus areactually fragments taken from larger statements that have become popular on Twitter, and they areall parts of retweets of famous figures especially that belong to Donald Trump

      Shocking how great the influence of one very loud person can be.

    2. the word “people” (American) is firstly connected toreal news (J< .027)

      super interesting - are people seen as more trustworthy than news sources? More credible? What would that mean in a news framing context? (Druckman, 2001)

    3. Twitter users are far more likely toassociate CNN with fake news (J< .044) rather than real news (J< .018)

      Ha!

    Tags

    Annotators

  4. Nov 2018
    1. Privatizing these core functions has happened over the course of decades, and for seemingly sensible reasons, but it has left the university trapped in expensive contracts that drain more than they provide institutional resources.

      We are great at turning public goods into profitable enterprises. Using an earlier, just think of how insane it is that we sell bottled water (and in some cases, bottled air)

    2. clean air and water

      Do these still qualify as public goods? I would argue that our use of air and water has started diminishing these goods' availability—and quality—for others.

    1. Prestige, that which drives an institution to compete, that which renders it competitive, in fact undermines its mission, especially where that mission is or ought to be focused on public service

      The very thing universities are using to evaluate and promote their value is actually making them less valuable...

    1. Comments are closed

      I wonder how Kathleen (or her publisher) decided WHEN to close the comments section. Interesting question for collaborative public works: When, if ever, do you decide that a piece is truly finished?

    1. Leave a comment on paragraph 13 6 Labor, in fact, is the primary reason that I resist the notion that all scholarly publications can be made available for free online

      See SFU student Carol Muñoz Nieves's talk on the "Invisible Labour" of public scholarship for more on this subject

    1. desirable

      This is a really good point—we need to incentivize public scholarship if we expect it to work. The OA citation advantage is one obvious benefit that makes it "desirable". Can anyone think of others?

    1. I trusted them to help me—and they did, overwhelmingly so

      This happens in the fiction world too, on Wattpad. Readers provide comments on stories as they are being written, and sometimes the writers actually change the plot accordingly.

      I'm not sure it always makes for better writing, but many authors find it is encouraging to have their fans cheer them on as they write.

    2. Wordherders

      http://www.wordherders.net/ (Though most of the blogs are no longer active)

    1. Why do we need to do this? My state’s public flagship university is 9.5% funded by my state.

      Similar things are happening in Canada: "Since 1990, the government’s share of university funding has fallen by nearly half and the cost of tuition at universities has risen 2.7 times in real terms"

      It's still better than the US, though. About 50-60% of university funding comes from government sources

    2. Because OERs encourage faculty and students to contribute to their learning materials, not just consume them

      It's about more than making textbooks more (economically) accessible. It's also a way to make them more engaging.

    1. “2.5%” proposal?

      The 2.5% Commitment: Every academic library should commit to contribute 2.5% of its total budget to support the common infrastructure needed to create the open scholarly commons. http://intheopen.net/2017/09/join-the-movement-the-2-5-commitment/

    1. what do we need publishers for?

      Organization and coordination? Marketing? I definitely understand this point, but I would argue that you still need some infrastructure to publish. Especially the question of diffusion. There is so much information circulating online that having some kind of outreach strategy is essential. I mean even PLoS has a marketing person....

    2. which comprise the most profitable drug, bank and auto companies among the top 10 biggest companies respectively, according to Forbes’ Global 200

      Wow. This is insane. Who knew knowledge was so profitable?

    3. This suggests that the top 5 publishers publish a higher number of papers per journal than other publishers not making the top five, and that their papers obtain, on average, a lower scientific impact.

      This is surprising. Quantity over quality?

    4. Scholarly journals also contributed to the professionalization of scientific activities by delimiting the frontier between popular science and the research front

      I wonder what life would be like if this had never have happened. Would science have advanced as much as it has? Would we still trust scientists for "expert" opinions? What would it mean to do research without this professionalization?

    1. the condition under which an organisation would be wound down, howthis would happen, and how any ongoing assets could be archived and preservedwhen passed to a successor organisation.

      Such a good point. Do any existing organizations have this? Does Google or Facebook? (And if not, what on earth will happen to all that data if these companies were to collapse?)

    1. Is the global North stuck in a rut in the path of history that does not allow for the existence of histories other than the universal history of the West?

      I like that this article highlights the disadvantages of colonialism for the Global North, not just the Global South

    2. The contemporary debate about private higher education institutions takes the idea of knowledge as a commodity to be bought and sold to another level

      The concepts of scarcity and value are so strongly connected. If access to knowledge isn't seen as something exclusive, can it still be seen as valuable?

    1. it will remain of limited value so long as the rest of the world does not feel it has to look at that research

      So true. And so sad.

      I love the expression "lost science" that's used earlier in the article. How much knowledge is lost because it isn't seen as valuable, important, or "core" science?

    2. . Such OA publishing portals help professionalize the production of journals

      Funny, considering that, in the Global North, OA journals are sometimes critiqued for being low quality or even "predatory"—i.e. the opposite of professional.

      e.g. https://bitesizebio.com/34520/open-access-good-bad-ugly/

    3. when they collaborate internationally, they generally appear in journals with international exposure, and they probably enjoy this collaborative advantage

      This wouldn't be so problematic if international collaboration benefited all researchers in the same way—i.e. if collaborating with people in non-OECD countries also increased researchers' exposure/status/impact.

    4. Changing a paradigm as Dr De managed to do is always difficult; doing it from Calcutta or any other similar location appears so unlikely as to be equated with impossible

      I wonder whether it's the name of the author or their actual location that leads to them being "passed over." I mean, we know the "ethnic" name bias exists elsewhere. Does it happen in academia too?

    1. Gold

      Interesting, given that "The only form of open for which mean impact has decreased steadily over time is Gold."

    2. More than half of the publications are freely available in biomedical research and mathematics, while in chemistry and engineering & technology less than 20% of the papers are freely available.

      Why?

    3. Bronze is the most common OA subtype in all the samples, which is particularly interesting given that few studies have highlighted its role.

      I don't really know if I fully understand what Bronze is. Anyone have any examples?

    4. OA articles are free to read online, either on the publisher website or in an OA repository.

      So these (already pretty encouraging) results actually underestimate the amount of scholarly work that is available for free online.

    1. nuanced understanding of users and their motivations by changing the options presentedto users, or by asking a broader array of questions

      Juan, is anyone investigating this? That was the point of the Twitter bot study, right?

    2. overage varies by fieldand by metric,

      Why?

    3. one of the forms of public use

      Definitely. I think people sometimes rule out the possibility that the public might just be interested in research, simply for interest's sake!

      In a study of the Italian public's interest in science, Falchetti et al (2007) conclude that—though a large portion of the public's science questions were practical in nature, they also expressed a strong interest in the "great unanswered questions" of the universe (e.g. "the origin of the universe, the paradox of reality envisioned by the theory of relativity, the nature of matter and anti-matter, the causes leading to death, the alternative between actual existence and the perception of reality")

      As the authors put it, "These questions tend to be ignored by science teaching and by the media, as if assuming that people are interested just in information and ordinary topics that have a bearing on their lives."

  5. Oct 2018
    1. “the people who generate the data really don’t have any say in what’s done with it”.

      This is such a crucial point. If participants don't have any agency over the data they collect, does it still count as citizen science?

      A related question: Does using Facebook, Twitter, Google, or any other app or platform that captures user data count as citizen science? And if not, why?

    2. both as “science which assists the needs and concerns of citizens” and as “a form of science developed and enacted by the citizens themselves”.

      Does this definition still hold true today? I got the sense that while some citizen science initiatives—like the community science projects Bonney et al. (2015) mention—do fit both parts of the definition, some of the more data collection-focused projects only really fit the latter half.

    3. CurieuzeNeuzen

      FYI for anyone who's interested, this literally means "curious noses"

    1. The memorandum encourages agencies to build and support citizen science by developing federal policy to engage and aid citizen science, allow for resources and staffing, support the development of technology, fund a diversity of projects, and invest in evaluating the effectiveness of citizen science to improve practice.

      It would be nice if this list also included something about educating or benefiting the participants themselves.

    2. BenefitsofEPASupportforCitizenScienceBenefits

      I wonder what the risks are of citizen science. For example, are there any ethical considerations that come into play when involving so many members of the public?

    3. environmental movement

      Most of the citizen science research seems to be related to environmentalism. What other domains has it been used in?

    4. street science

      Street science is a framework that joins local insights with professional scientific techniques, with concurrent goals: to improve scientific inquiry and environmental health policy and decision making.

    5. EPA

      The Environmental Protection Agency is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do

    1. geographically, intellectu-ally, and in terms of values, interests, families, and jobs

      And in terms of language, time/flexibility of scheduling, skill with/access to technology... can anyone think of others?

    2. ely primarily on users’ intrinsic motivations

      I would be curious to know what some of these intrinsic motivations are. If we knew, scientists could probably do a better job of making sure these projects are actually rewarding to the citizens who participate.

    3. Second, the concept of PUS can be defined and meas-ured in so many ways that a beleaguered project leader is hard-pressed to know where to start.

      Third, is it possible that the "beleaguered project leader" just doesn't care? Maybe I'm just being cynical but can we really assume that every researcher engaged in citizen science cares deeply about the personal development of each participant?

    4. because significant funding for citizen science originates from the Advancement in Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program of the US National Science Foundation (NSF), science education is an important or primary goal for many projects

      Does this statement make anyone else a little sad? On the one hand, I think it's great that there's funding in place to promote science education through research. On the other, it would be so nice if we didn't have to incentivize it monetarily.

    1. olar. In altmetrics, data quality is a major challenge and transcends the known errors and biases for cita

      Asura has a cool paper about this! About the challenges of using Facebook data as an indicator of engagement: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01194

    2. following seven groups of social media platforms used for altmetrics areidentified

      But how long will these groups remain relevant? Social media changes so, so fast.

    3. scholarly agents (e.g., rese

      So if someone shares/favorites/retweets a scholar's personal tweet—something completely unrelated to any research—does that count as scholarly metrics? If so, that seems problematic.

    4. ts such as salami publishing

      Salami publication can be roughly defined as a publication of two or more articles derived from a single study (2). Articles of such type report on data collected from a single study split into several segments just large enough to gain reasonable results and conclusions, also known as “minimal publishable unit” (3).

      Source: Smolčić, V. Š. (2013). Salami publication: definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23(3), 237–241. http://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030

    1. the story of the origin of the wolf clan serves to showthat vulnerability and violence are unacceptable,

      Does it actually show this?

    2. engaging with stories also opens up space for variousinterpretations

      So interesting. I feel like we tend to think of law as doing the opposite: offering a single, "just" interpretation of a given situation.

    3. Law should never be the only system discussed or appliedin dealing with violence against women.

      Yes! This is such an important point. Laying down a sentence isn't enough. We also need initiatives—both short term and long term—dedicated to helping women heal, cope, and even just survive in the aftermath of the violence they've experienced, as well as preventative measures.

      What other "systems" should be applied?

    4. inter alia

      among other things

    5. we believe that laws in all societies change overtime and there is a need to be contextually specific in how they aretheorized, taught, and practised.

      There seems to be this tendency to view Indigenous beliefs, practices, and systems as traditional and static, rather than contemporary, dynamic, and flexible.

    1. “community,”it becomes apparent by looking at its frequent proximity to words like “university,” “service,” “faculty,” “professional,” and “academic” that this term is generally used to refer to the academic community, composed primarily of faculty members

      Such an important distinction. To who are you making your work public? How often are researchers asked to look outside of the university walls?

    2. Life Sciences (LS)most frequently includethese terms, with 86% including “public” and 100% including “community”

      This kind of makes sense, given the high applicability and relevancy of (some) Life Sciences research

    3. These documents are not publicly available due to copyright restrictions.

      So I guess that answers an earlier question: not all RPT documents are publicly available

    4. how do they know what is expected of them

      This is a question I keep struggling with in this course: What does "the public" actually want from the academic community? Has anyone actually asked?

      (If so, can someone please point me to the paper/article/resource?)

  6. Sep 2018
    1. where people can now be found any time of day

      Yes, but what people? I would love to know some stats/demographics about who uses this space, and why. Does this revitalized building actually appeal to or serve the needs of the existing community? Or has it simply introduced another community (i.e. the university) into that space.

    2. If intensely local transformations can gather sufficient momentum to tip the scales back in favor of sensible and sustainable urbanization on the scale of a neighbor-hood, they can do so for an entire city.

      we talked about this with Nancy last class. When does it make sense to take a big picture approach and scale down, vs a localized approach that you scale up later.

    3. resi-dents ranging from Father Jim to grandmothers with deep wisdom and memories of the past to the youth who ultimately will save this neighborhood

      Okay, this is a bit over the top. Sounds like a fairy tale. Or like one of those inspirational movies where the new teacher comes in and improves the inner city high school's literacy rates by 200% in one year. (I get their point, though....)

    4. co-exist side by side with, rather than connected to, those cores.

      I remember this from being at UBC—the school felt so separate from the rest of the community. There were even tours of Vancouver's downtown east side available for students, because so many of them had never even been east of Main Street.

    5. a Cult of the Expert

      love this.

    6. growth within U.S. metropolitan areas was three times greater at their fringes than at their urban cores.

      i.e. urbanization is moving outwards, rather than upwards. I think Vancouver is trying to do the opposite.

    1. Women are much more likely than men to report carrying out CES (Voglegesang et al., 2005); one study found 90 per cent of faculty who self-identified as community-engaged scholars were women (O’Meara, 2002).

      Wow. Also, so true in other settings as well—women are more likely to do work that doesn't advance their careers.

    2. Have you been involved in CES? If so, can you tell me about it in terms of whether it was teaching, research, service or a combination of these and other expertise?

      I wonder what they might have discovered if they'd interviewed at least one person who doesn't engage in CES. I'm curious what prevents academics from doing so, and whether having more formal policies or recognition would actually make a difference for scholars who aren't already interested in CES.

    3. There is already enough data for faculties to start developing their own evaluation policies and for universities to start incoporating them in their policies and guideline

      Should these policies be developed by individual faculties or universities, or at a federal or international level?

      It seems there are so many different definitions, so many different visions of what CES can and should entail—I wonder if we need a unified body, some kind of standard way to conceptualize CES.

    4. He spoke to the French-Canadian association about it and told them they were wrong because “whether they like or not the French-Canadian term has a hyphen that contains an ethnic

      Does this count as CES? Somehow, this image of the professor telling the community "they are wrong" doesn't really sit well with me. Where, actually, is Arnal getting this view from? What research does he have to support it?

      His use of the term "prison of ignorance" later in the paragraph also really diminishes the power of the community's own views and experiences. Just because his views differ from others' in the community, doesn't mean those others are ignorant.

    5. the university cannot be isolated from the community or be seen as an ivory tower because knowledge is a public event.

      Best line in this article.

    6. KEY CONCEPTS

      Does all CES need to address inequalities? Can you think of any examples that don't?

    7. Involves discovery , integration and application of knowledge.

      Does all CES need to be practical/applied research?

    8. in the west, ‘community’ tends to more a compilation of isolated fragments than a holistic concept.

      I'm curious what Block is basing this statement on, and what community looks like "in the east".

      Does using these kinds of extreme cultural comparisons make anyone else weary or uncomfortable? I feel like they really create space for generalizations and stereotyping. (In cultural psych, for example, although differences within groups are often larger than those between groups, the latter tend to be the focus of more research and media coverage)

    9. staff members are encouraged to insert their scholarly work into community issues.

      I absolutely hate this idea of "inserting" scholarship into a community. It seems to go completely against most of the other definitions of engaged scholarship, in which research is informed by, and done in collaboration with, the community (rather than done in isolation, then only later "inserted" into the community). This framing makes CES feel aggressive, authoritative, and dominating: the researcher pushing her work into the community, without any input or even permission from the community members themselves.

      Plus, I would argue that whether or not they choose to acknowledge it or not, all scholars—and the work they produce—exist within some community, likely several different ones at once. The choice is more about recognizing that existing context, and deciding whether, how, and to what extent to engage with it.

    10. www.cescholarship.ca
    11. see www.cescholarship.ca)

      Link doesn't exist. I think the actual website is https://engagedscholarship.ca/

    12. The purpose of the first study was to establish a picture of where CES stands at select Canadian universities in terms oftenure and promotion, as evidenced by written policies and documents.

      They used a very similar design to Alperin et al (2018). Key differences I spotted right away:

      1. topic (CES vs open access)
      2. sample size (19 vs 100+)
      3. region (Canada vs Canada AND USA) Do you notice any others?
    1. ‘experienced-based experts’

      Aren't we all "experienced-based experts" in something? I feel like this goes back to that idea of the scientist as an authority figure. Once we label someone as an "expert", their opinion instantly becomes more valid, acceptable, trustworthy.

    1. typical community settings

      What on earth is a "typical community setting"?

    2. more egalitarian

      Probably also more relevant, if you're involving the people/groups who will be directly affected by the policy in question.

    3. responding only to sudden policymaker demand for evidence-based solutions to a pre-defined problem

      I.e. it is the responsibility of scientists to create the demand for evidence, not just supply it.

    4. employ two shortcuts – ‘rational’, pursuing clear goals and prioritising certain sources of information, and ‘irrational’, drawing on emotions, gut feelings, beliefs and habits to make decisions quickly.

      Like all humans when we make decisions, no?

    5. Or, does this strategy produce an ethical dilemma and/or the potential to reduce long-term scientific credibility?

      It sounds like what's happened with journalism and the click-bait culture. Are sensational reporting and eye-grabbing headlines just a more effective way of engaging the public?

    6. lack of time, support, resources and incentives

      You could argue most (maybe all?) of these apply to the policy makers themselves too, as key barriers that get in the way of using high quality information effectively

  7. paulcairney.files.wordpress.com paulcairney.files.wordpress.com
    1. Such discussions suggest that scientists can improve the use of evidence in policy in a relatively straightforward way by identifying a core group of policy makers and using the best scientific information to reduce policy maker uncertainty.

      Like writing a press release about your research study, packaging it nicely for media

    2. The most frequently reported barriers relate to the lack of time, support, resources, and incentives for scientists to disseminate high-quality information effectively (Cairney 2016 ; Oliver et al. 2014

      This seems to mirror the challenges journalists are experiencing almost exactly, according to Lasia Kretzel (from the Jevin West talk on Sep 13)

    3. Practitioner Points

      WIllinsky (Access Principle, Ch 11) argues that structuring publications in this way (with simple summary points or key takeaways) can make it easier for readers to understand and engage with research.

    1. communicate.

      A third question, I would argue, is "Whose voice is being left out?" What evidence is inaccessible, or is being (either unintentionally or intentionally) ignored?

    2. Ambiguity describes the ability to entertain more than one interpretation of a policy problem.

      Which is where "framing" has the most power, the greatest potential to sway opinion

    1. some actors exercise power to reinforce dominant ways to think about the world.

      What I find interesting about this, is that power, in this case, is a question of (at least) two things that relate directly to the university:

      1. Access (to related research, information, etc that can help inform opinion on public policy)
      2. Training (to think critically about that information, interpret the data and state of research, and also to communicate/frame it in an impactful way)
    2. ‘national mood’

      Like how presidential campaigns are now orchestrated by top tier social psychologists.

    3. the selective presentation of facts

      Like Jevin West said in his talk, "numbers should always be presented in context...but they're not"

      A friend of mine did her undergrad in journalism, and she says the most important lesson she learned is: A story isn't about what you include, but what you leave out

    1. There are many other examples

      Really good book on this topic: Merchants of Doubt

    2. retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence
    3. · Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

      A powerful reason to make all research publicly accessible.

    4. More than a third of American adults believe that on some level they’ve made contact with the dead.

      A more recent study (2006) found that more than 60% of participants held this belief! I wonder what the proportion is today, and whether it will continue increasing...

    1. bullshit is a greater enemy of the truththan lies are.

      So bullshit exists on a totally different pane of reality than truth and lies. It can exist independent of facts. It has no roots in the real world—or at least, it doesn't require them.

    2. is that thetruth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him

      So the lier cares more about truth than the bullshitter does?

    3. Therefore provision is made forenjoying a certain irresponsibility, so that people will beencouraged to convey what is on their minds without too muchanxiety that they will be held to it.

      This also means that bull sessions create an opportunity for people to express thoughts or beliefs they wouldn't feel comfortable sharing otherwise—i.e. the opposite of bull shit.

      But of course, if it's said in the context of a bull session, the truth will be indistinguishable from the bull shit. Does it still count as telling the truth, if everyone things your just bullshitting?

    4. “an informalconversation or discussion, esp. of a group of males.”

      Ha. This sounds more like #BroTalk

    5. After all, every use oflanguage without exception has some, but not all, of thecharacteristic features of lies

      I love this strangely poetic moment in the essay. What's that famous Kafka quote again..."All language is but a poor translation"?

      It's funny how easy it is to forget that language is just a tool we've developed to attempt to describe reality to one another. Words are stand-ins for the real things, feelings, thoughts, or sensations they are meant to convey—not true or complete reflections of the world.

      And if all language is, to some degree, a lie or misrepresentation, what does that mean for bullshit? Is it the person's intention—of wanting to fool or deceive vs communicate reality—that sets bullshit apart from other discourse?