OAI12 Session 4
Diversity, inclusion and collaboration
The conversation on innovation in scholarly communication is still very much dominated by white males from institutions from the Global North. We strongly believe that innovation in scholarly communication would benefit from correcting this bias and opening up a true, inclusive dialogue among stakeholders with more diverse backgrounds and profiles. How can we convert scholarly communication into a global, participatory, accessible and equitable ecosystem? What strategies might we use to make our in-person, hybrid and online conferences and events as open and accessible as possible? Rather than simply focusing on Western models for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, as well as for Open Access and Open Science, what can we learn from the different approaches to achieving these goals as practiced in non-Western settings? And, most broadly, how can science and scholarly communication best help facilitate multilateralism, mutual understanding and international cooperation?
Thursday 09 Sept. 2021
Unir les forces pour accélérer le changement - Joining Forces to Accelerate Change
Coalition Publica est une initiative commune de deux projets basés au Canada, Érudit (erudit.org) et le Public Knowledge Project (PKP), qui collaborent pour développer et coordonner une infrastructure nationale ouverte et durable soutenant la diffusion de la recherche et l'édition scientifique numérique.
L'effort de collaboration vise l’atteinte d'objectifs communs : renforcer les capacités locales et l'expertise en édition dans le but de soutenir les revues en sciences humaines et sociales en anglais et en français. Grâce à un modèle financier basé sur des partenariats avec des bibliothèques, des agences gouvernementales, des universités et d'autres institutions connexes, Coalition Publica encourage une transition juste et durable vers le libre accès.
Les principes de diversité, d’équité et d’inclusion sont au cœur du mandat de Coalition Publica. Cependant, atteindre ces principes exige des efforts concertés et continus. Cette présentation propose une brève auto-évaluation afin de discuter de nos bons coups et de ce qui peut encore être amélioré en termes de principes EDI.
Coalition Publica is a joint partnership initiative of two key Canadian-based projects, Érudit (erudit.org) and the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), collaborating to develop and coordinate an open and sustainable national infrastructure supporting research dissemination and digital scholarly publishing.
The collaborative effort aims to achieve a purpose common to both entities: build local capacity and publishing expertise to support humanities and social sciences journals either in English or in French. Through a financial model based on partnerships with libraries, government agencies, universities, and other related institutions, Coalition Publica encourages a fair and sustainable transition to open access.
Diversity, equity and inclusion principles are at the heart of Coalition Publica’s mandate. However, reaching those principles requires concerted and continuous efforts. This presentation will offer a short self-assessment to discuss what we do well and what can still be improved with regards to EDI principles.
¿Qué tipo de diversidad, inclusión y colaboración? Redefiniendo los valores de la comunicación científica desde las Humanidades Digitales - What diversity, inclusion and collaboration? (Re)defining the values of Scholarly Communication from the Digital Humanities
[español] Junto con las innovadores metodologías y prácticas digitales y computacionales, las Humanidades Digitales proponen nuevos modelos de trabajo, publicación y evaluación. Si bien los debates sobre los valores y la ética del trabajo en las Humanidades Digitales tienen una larga data en las academias anglófonas interesadas en el campo, en América Latina han surgido formas de repensar las Humanidades Digitales desde los movimientos de acceso abierto y ciencia abierta. Valores como la diversidad, la inclusión y la colaboración se han visto así beneficiados por nuevas aproximaciones teóricas y la puesta en práctica a través de diferentes recursos y herramientas digitales del ámbito de la comunicación científica.
The Digital Humanities propose innovative digital and computational methodologies and practices, together with new approaches to research, publication and evaluation. Although debates about the values of the Digital Humanities have a long history in Northern academies, Latin America has been more interested in rethinking the Digital Humanities from open access and open science movements. Values such as diversity, inclusion and collaboration have thus been benefited by new theoretical approaches and implementation through different scholarly communication resources and digital tools.
Open access but persistent divide: what are we missing of the challenges of African biomedical journal editors?
Africa is undoubtedly a major beneficiary of the open access movement; however, its contribution to open access remains extremely limited. In 2019, 196 out of 13,773 journals indexed in the DOAJ, were from Africa, down from 219 in 2011. The persistent North-South divide and the lack of representation of the big South in the open access conversation should be a cause for concern for the open access movement. Beyond the structural and environment challenges to research in Africa, the speaker will provide an overview of the challenges in developing a publishing industry in African including the views of the open access movement towards African journals. He will also discuss the need to reflect on the lack of geographical diversity in the open access movement, both in terms of content contribution and voices, and will explore how the open access movement could respond.
Text, techné and tenure: what remains out of scope of research evaluation in Humanities disciplines and how to change it for the better?
Peer review is central scholarly practice that carries fundamental paradoxes from its inception. On the one hand, it is very difficult to open up peer review for the sake of empirical analysis, as it usually happens in closed black boxes of publishing and other gatekeeping workflows that are embedded in a myriad of disciplinary cultures, each of which comes very different, and usually competing notions of excellence. On the other hand, it is a practice that carries an enormous weight in terms of gatekeeping; shaping disciplines, publication patterns and power relations within academia. This central role of peer review alone explains why it is crucial to study to better understand situated evaluation practices, and to continually rethink them to strive for their best, and least imperfect (or reasonably imperfect) instances.
How the notion of excellence and other peer review proxies are constructed and (re)negotiated in everyday practices across the SSH disciplines; who are involved in the processes and who remain out; what are the boundaries of peer review in terms of inclusiveness with content types; and how the processes are aligned or misaligned to research realities? What are the underlying reasons behind the persistence of certain proxies in the system and what are emerging trends and future innovations?
To gain an in-depth understanding of these questions, as part of the H2020 project OPERAS-P, our task force collected and analysed 32 in-depth interviews with scholars about their motivations, challenges and experiences with novel practices in scholarly writing and in peer-review. The presentation will showcase the results of this study. Focus will be on the conflict between the richness of contemporary scholarship and the prestige economy that defines our current academic evaluation culture.
The encoded and pseudonymized interview transcripts that form the basis of our analysis will be shared as open data in a certified data repository together with a rich documentation of the process so that our interpretations, conclusions and the resulting recommendations are clearly delineable from the rich input we had been working with and which are thus openly reusable for other purposes.
Diversity, inclusion and collaboration: A critical open knowledge perspective
When universities need to address strategic issues, they increasingly demand data to support decisions. With equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) high on the agenda for universities and governments, at least in the Anglophone North, there is a growing amount of data available. This data tells a largely depressing story of limited progress. But there is more to this story than might first appear. Decisions about whether or not to collect data about EDI; and the terms that are used to describe the aspects of diversity considered relevant to a specific national or institutional context may have as much to tell us about the geographies of our EDI conversations as the data itself. Taking a critical perspective to the data available can help us to identify differing priorities and concerns in various contexts. This presentation draws on the very large data set that has been gathered as part of the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative: tens of trillions of data points relating to research communication, open access, collaboration and diversity. Outside the Anglophone North ethnic diversity and minority inclusion as understood in the West is not always a priority, and although gender equity may be an intention, outcomes indicate great disparities in some countries. Similarly we can compare rhetoric on diversity and inclusion (for example in Annual reports) with actual performance, not just identifying a gap, but seeing how that gap is related to prestige and resources. Using our model of Open Knowledge Institutions, this talk will examine both what the available data tells us, and what it cannot tell us, and in turn, what that tells us.
Is inclusiveness in scholcom really beneficial for scholarship?
Talking about diversity and inclusion, we often take for granted that it benefits everyone and that it is a goal to be pursued for the sake of equality and innovation. However, there are cases where inclusion, in fact, can harm local scholarship. For instance, being included in global scholcomm assumes working on research topics that are interesting and relevant to the global audience. This presumption can undermine local scholarship focused on domestic issues such as national history, literature, local economy, legal framework, and other social issues. Since many countries put it on their agenda to compete globally and achieve high world university rankings, their researchers are sometimes forced to change their research topics to be able to publish in global and high-impact journals if they want to sustain their academic career. Thus, it can be said that the pursuit towards inclusive scholcom largely distorts the scholarship landscape, ending up in research detached from local interests. But shouldn’t research also serve local interests, especially if it is publicly funded? This presentation is based on discussions and confrontations that occurred at forming the internationalization of the University of Tokyo.