Open Practice: the road less travelled
Why does Open Knowledge in research continue to be a disruptive notion? Particularly when it appears to be consistent with the underlying ethos of all scholastic endeavour. In my previous musings on Open Practice in Higher Education (HE), I came to the conclusion that underneath all the policies, politics and promotions, it is fear of the new and unknown. The confluence of more people studying at university and increased interest from industry to interact with the HE sector requires that something has to change to increase Open Knowledge in HE. The current system needs to adapt and here, writing this from my dining table and living like the reclusive Angela Bennett in The Net, I will argue that embracing Open Practice is part of the solution.
WHAT IS OPEN PRACTICE?
Most researchers believe that they are already behaving openly so do not need to change. In many respects they are, but only with a limited subgroup. Within the university ecosystem there are well defined communities each containing self-regulating factions, which is useful both collegially as it gives researchers a sense of belonging and operationally for the university to distribute funds, report outcomes etc. I define Open Practice as a researcher who is self-aware of their own motivations and agendas. By this I mean that they not only freely provide information but freely acknowledge what they take regardless of the source. So, when put into action, Open Practice is synonymous with transparent and respectful behaviours towards not just your peer group but to all potential users of outputs. This does imply that be an Open Practitioner requires both an awareness of the availability of knowledge and flexibility in individual behaviour. That sounds easy, right?
INTO THE VOID
Well, let’s start with awareness of availability of knowledge. This will not be easy, in 2009 we passed the 50 million mark in terms of the total number of science papers published since 1665, and approximately 2.5 million new scientific papers are published each year. RCUK insist that all research they fund must be made available via Open Access publishing as they believe this will “deliver social benefits through increased public understanding of research”. Putting academic findings “out there” will not bring impact alone, whether academic or non-academic, and being published doesn’t mean the research will be read, never mind acted upon. There is some evidence to suggest the digital deluge in the last two decades has actually narrowed the range of citations, increasing and accelerating consensus, where research groups cite each other’s recent papers in a feedback loop — the very antithesis of innovation but good for H-indexes. Then, of course, you need to consider the quality and scientific rigor of the published material. If you also factor in the existence of predatory journals or that, despite idealistic aspirations, Open Access journals appear to have inadvertently created a Wild West type scenario in academic publishing it is a wonder anyone still publishes at all.
Rachel Kenyon, has suggested that we need to look at mechanisms to maximise where and how new knowledge is used, for example getting academic findings into public policy. This is generally seen as unpopular with researchers as white papers do not carry the same weight for career progression as citation counts. Some argue that it is these stakeholders, the project managers, funders and policy makers, who are responsible for the flood of publications, particularly those of poor quality. That this digital deluge is nothing to worry about as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) process filters out of the noise in academic communication to distil the best form each institution. Yet there is so much more to impact than REF, because most of the stakeholders who could benefit and implement the research findings outside of a university setting won’t be reading journal articles whether they are Open Access or not and arguably the rankings produced have little relevance or significance to any stakeholder outside of tertiary education. Carly Chadwick astutely points out that the links between Open Access and the societal and economic benefits of research are ambiguous and intractable. This is because Open Access has two elements — the ‘open’ part (making research available) and the ‘access’ part (making it accessible, or understandable). To follow her line of thinking this means that whilst journal articles may have their place as an academic output, they should not be at the heart of Open Practice.
Indeed the lack of awareness not only relates to what academics are producing but to what businesses want. These barriers to technology translation into commercial success from universities are well researched. A 2018 BEIS report highlighted thirteen that can be broadly categorised into two areas: no standard technology translation plan exists and most research projects are actually not ready for further industrial/equity investment. Universities have little appreciation of how complex the process of technology transition is, limited knowledge of development timescales industry works to and low awareness of the incentives they are motivated by. This lack of understanding of the development ecosystem (both in research, supply and value chains) to commercialise a technology can leave researchers feeling overwhelmed and intimidated when approaching industries. Most technologies developed within academia tend to be perceived as having wide industrial applicability (predominately for REF), however in reality identifying and quantifying industry-relevant issues these new technologies address is difficult, and without external input universities can be way off. Yet, companies do recognise the value of academic research, large companies in particular appreciate strategic alignment with academia. This is reflected in their significant investment in university research programmes, with more than 60% of innovation income to universities funded by corporates.
Yet to really make a difference we must recognise the value of other forms of open communication. It is here platforms such as Altmetrics can provide a way to measure influence and impact of research outside academia, going beyond citations and H-indexes. These alternative metrics track public policy documents, mainstream media, patents, Wikipedia, blogs, social media networks and multi-media platforms. In an era where researchers seem to have less and less time for tangential tasks that don’t contribute directly to moving their careers forward they are often overlooked. Instead researchers are caught up in repeating the same cycle and the relevance of these other approaches to enabling them to work smarter, not harder, is lost. So what about the second aspect of Open Practice I identified: individual behaviour?
GENERATION OF INNOVATION
In principle Open Practice should increase communication and increase impact without increasing effort, so why isn’t everyone doing it? We need an external factor to break the status quo, to shake things up. The tribal nature of university research can be useful for setting boundaries, particularly when working on a specific project or problem, but for real scientific innovation there needs to be a trade-off between efficiency and open chaos. Jerome Engle, adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship, has coined the term “cluster of innovation” which seeks to create a feedback loop where acceleration of communication is increased. The exchange of ideas occurs more easily which increases interaction and thus innovation. In practice there needs to be a catalyst to encourage researchers to move between the different fractions, to encourage groups to disband and reform with new members and generate fresh insights.
SERENDIPITY OR OPEN PRACTICE?
So how do we encourage behaviours which allows speeds of transactions to increase and facilitate the flow of information? When innovations have happened in the past it tends to have been either unprecedented or extraordinary circumstances or through the force of an exceptional individual. The question is therefore, what behaviours were permitted in these instances that we need to duplicate? There must be something more to it than bringing groups together through breakfast meetings and conferences. Despite correlations between the birth of modern science during the Renaissance era and adoption of coffee in Europe, sadly coffee is not the catalyst here. I believe that it is real, tangible support in terms of confidence (either in one’s own abilities or from the management structure) and freedom (as in release from other duties or responsibilities for a duration). CERN provides a recent example that this can happen, a series of collaborations involving over 3000 people worldwide has provided extraordinary results. To translating their successes across to the HE sector more UK universities will need to:
· be cognisant of and have confidence in the value they bring to interactions with their stakeholders; especially when research is supported by industry.
· acknowledge that individual academics have competing priorities (between teaching, research and commercialisation activities) which need to be managed carefully through internal processes.
· use academic behaviour and conduct as well as outputs as metrics for progression, giving both equal weight.
The significance of the last point should not be overlooked; most professions have an explicit code of conduct covering professional behaviours and ethics, placing personal obligation on its members to act with integrity and in the public interest. So why not academics and the research community?
Some disciplines already do this, in the UK medical students usually take an oath when they graduate but there is no standard approach. Some universities — like Aberdeen and Dundee — use a modified version of the Hippocratic Oath, while Bristol uses the “Bristol Promise,” which is said en masse out loud on the day of graduation. Even though healthcare professionals are regulated by law and the General Medical Council, many clinicians agree the oath taken at graduation serves as a reminder that doctors should neither overestimate their capacity to heal, nor underestimate their capacity to cause harm. On the other side of the Atlantic all students about to graduate from an engineering program at a university in Canada are permitted to participate in the Calling of the Engineer. This is a private ceremony where the participants are presented with an iron ring, this is not evidence of qualification but symbolises the pride which engineers have in their profession, while simultaneously reminding them of their humility. If applied to all PhD graduates this could be a reminder that they are part of a profession, and although it may not always be apparent on a day to day basis their work, the research they do, can and does have impact outside of academia.
CONSCIOUS CHANGES
Open Practice currently represents the road less travelled and without a guide researchers will continue to follow the familiar but frantic approach that their supervisors trod and their peers are currently schlepping along. All are caught in a desperate cycle of securing funding, producing more papers, and winning the next promotion; always more, more, more. Within the variations and vagaries unique to each Faculty the underlying message is always the same — publish or perish (but only in the “right” journals). Any interactions with industry are obsequious; researchers regularly sell themselves, and their university, woefully short but worse (from the point of view of industry) commit to deliver results on timescales they will be unable to meet, leading to frustrations on both sides. There is another way, besides the stubborn, sullen anarchy of those such as Nobel Laurent Peter Higgs who claimed:
“I was an embarrassment to the department when they did research assessment exercises. A message would go round the department: ‘Please give a list of your recent publications.’ And I would send back a statement: ‘None.’”
To embrace Open Practice requires individuals to have a clear perspective on what is actually important to them with regards to their outputs. To remember that other stakeholders will have very different agendas that are more fundamental than wrangles over Intellectual Property. For example, corporate R&D tend to have development horizons which can span decades but universities are under increasing and significant financial pressures tend to take a short-term view to stimulate income. Furthermore, whilst universities are asset rich and cash poor, many larger companies, are the opposite and SMEs suffer in both respects, as for their barriers to innovation are further exasperated by the lack of patient capital. The adoption of a more open practices could provide a mutually beneficial solution for all parties. Although there are no quick solutions with but the Library via Open Access+ as your guides some suggestions are:
Academic consultation — the academic comfort zone for industrial engagement, where tangible open outputs are technical notes, white papers, policy documents, opinion pieces for mainstream media (Financial Times, The Conversation), all readily accessible (in every sense) to a wider audience. The change needed is that these activities need to be given more kudos when assessing academic output.
Research outputs — once you realise most academic research is not ready be applied directly to industrial problems, the separate components, data, code etc. could be made openly accessible. Often from an industrial point of view it is the application of data and not the data itself which is proprietary. Admittedly this does require an act of faith that others will be equally transparent so use can be traced but we have to start somewhere. A precedence has been set with the Pay-What-You-Want scheme, this business model invokes friendly win-win exchange centred on value and trust. Unfortunately knowledge and materials can be misused and the opposite side of this coin of course is Export Control which seeks to monitor and control this.
Outreach and training — verification through the replication of results is at the heart of science. The technology to film procedures is now readily available, permitting others to follow and critique your methodologies. Fieldwork, laboratory or archive can make use of the many social media platforms now available. Given the wealth of make-up tutorials and DIY instructional videos, the attraction of this type of input is vast, and with some thoughtful editing the appeal of these videos can easily extent the target audience.
TRAILBLAZERS UNITE!
For me, Open Knowledge in HE cannot be progress without the adoption of Open Practice as it should encourage researchers to think beyond journal articles. It will also require the HE sector to be more outward looking, cognisant and confident of in the value they bring to society. I am by no means the first to point this out but perhaps the current global pandemic will cause the tide to turn. The initial lock down and continued social distancing has forced everyone to look for other solutions whether they were technological, operational or managerial. It was with a wry smile that I observed the rapid adoption of open platforms that are already available, just waiting to be used. Nafeez Ahmed, an academic on international security, advocates the adoption of more open ways of working, not only to the survive 2020 but more generally. His research on global crises lead to him advising Ubisoft on the authenticity of its post-pandemic video game, The Division. Now, as the world begins to tentatively re-emerge, we need to dare to do things differently.
Change is hard though, real hard. Anyone who has attempted any type of lifestyle change can attest to it. Having the resolve to do things differently and to influence change in others is even more challenging. From my experiences attempting this from the middle of a workplace hierarchy, the main barrier to Open Practice keeps coming down to perspective and behaviour. Yet, if many individuals can make some small shifts, collectively we can bring about huge changes.
You in?
