OCSDNET

Lessons from Colombia: Tying Open Science with Local Development Needs

2015-12-04T08:29:25Z

By: Denisse Albornoz and Josique Lorenzo

In a recent post we described the experience of OCSDNet members: Leslie Chan (OCSDNet Principal Investigator), Denisse Albornoz (OCSDNet Coordination Team) and Josique Lorenzo (Project sub-grantee, CATIE) at the seminar on Ciencia Abierta (Open Science) at the UTP (Technological University of Pereira) in Colombia, where they met with scholars, organizations and community leaders advancing open and collaborative science to tackle development challenges in the region.

This second post, written collaboratively by Denisse Albornoz and Josique Lorenzo, will describe the lessons we brought home, what they mean for the OCS in Development field and how they will be addressed by OCSDNet.

Summary:

Speakers of ‘Ciencia Abierta’ seminar emphasized the importance of identifying motivations, incentives and ideologies in local contexts to evaluate the real potential of OCS, as well as its benefits and challenges.

After introducing the term to diverse communities, openness proved to be an appealing term, yet by no means all encompassing or representative of other inclusive and collaborative knowledge production models. It continues to attract an academically and digitally literate class, which limits our understanding of how ‘openness’ is defined or manifested on the ground.

Spending time in Latin America exposed us to ideologies that fundamentally challenge the tenets of Western development agendas. We have identified a new thematic area in our research that explores the plurality of regional and local expressions of OCS, and hopes to produce a nuanced, and context-sensitive understanding of open practices in the network.

How can Open and Collaborative Science (OCS) address locally relevant concerns?

Colombia is one of the richest countries of the world in terms of biodiversity (photo: Josique Lorenzo)

Introducing concepts of Open and Collaborative Science to an audience who was completely unfamiliar with the concept was quite a challenge. Although the community hosting the seminar was eager to explore what OCS meant for research, innovation and development in a knowledge-based economy, it soon became clear that Open Science could not be defined without tying it to local motivations, incentives and ideologies. Identifying these and examining the political, cultural and social conditions under which Open Science becomes attractive for scientists and researchers is the first step towards examining its local relevance.

Three themes stood out in the Colombian context. The first was biodiversity management and conservation. Most speakers, including Martha Giraldo, Jorge Orejuela, Josep Pintó and Josique Lorenzo, framed OCS as an important practice to generate knowledge and participatory programs geared towards the protection and valuing of biodiversity and the environment. They made an explicit connection between OCS initiatives such as open mapping, citizen science and participatory action research as key activities to capture the ways in which environmental degradation is affecting the economic and social life in Colombia and make visible the symbolic and cultural value it has for many of its communities.

“[Bio-diversity] is one of the biggest ways in which Open Science is becoming relevant and interesting for communities in Colombia” Pilar Saenz, Fundación Karisma

The second theme was the peace and post-conflict reconciliation process. John Mario Rodriguez, professor at UTP and coordinator of Risaralda Model Forest, powerfully situated ‘openness’ in Colombia’s current moment in history, as the state approaches the end of a 50-year-long gruesome war with the FARC. He reflected on how a philosophy of openness could speak to reconciliation processes that include the painful visibilization of memories of violence.

“How can openness help us produce knowledge to deal with the upcoming challenges of the post-conflict era?” John Mario Rodrigues, UTP

This theme is particularly relevant in highly politicized contexts. Could open research practices produce knowledge to challenge the strategic closure of key information by institutions and dominant political groups? Could collaborative knowledge production help restore the social fabric of the nation moving forward? These questions had a deep echo in the room, and signalled the complexity of negotiating tenets of openness, such as transparency and the democratization of knowledge, with political conflicts.

John Mario Rodriguez, UTP Faculty and organizer of UTP Ciencia Abierta seminar (photo: Josique Lorenzo)

The third theme was the recognition and appreciation of ancestral and indigenous knowledge(s). As exposed in Jorge Orejuela’s presentation, while there is an intention to use OCS practices to facilitate the exchange of knowledge between Afro-Colombian and indigenous groups, as well as raise awareness about threats to their livelihood; many communities still look at the open sharing of knowledge with suspicion.

“Citizen science is being integrated with community knowledge – and these are determining processes of cultural survival and territory defence” Jorge Orejuela, University of Cali

The extraction and patenting of natural resources and local knowledge by Northern institutions has threatened the survival of indigenous communities in the Global South for decades; openness could in many ways exacerbate their exposure and hence vulnerability to these practices. Can open and collaborative science promote the opening up and protection of indigenous knowledge simultaneously? If we are promoting a culture of sharing, how can we also promote a culture of respect in this sharing, such that we establish safeguards and governance structures that honour these boundaries?

How can OCS bridge the divide between communities of practice?

First day of the OCS community workshop at Belen de Umbria (photo: Josique Lorenzo)

After the seminar, we visited Belen de Umbria and attended Open Science workshop (part of the OCSDNet project – Improving Adaptive Capacity with OCS) in which community groups presented proposals for climate change adaptation projects. Values of collaboration, inclusion and participation were at the core of their proposals, yet their articulation of open science felt foreign. It seemed more of a placeholder rather than a true descriptor of the spirit of their work. This discomfort also played out as the OCSDNet team struggled with live translation (when Denisse and Josique attempted to translate the presentations from Spanish to English for Leslie) and we quickly discovered the challenges of finding translations for cultural expressions that shape vocabularies of sharing.

The diversity of actors of the seminar and workshop made evident that one of the key barriers to open and collaborative science is the lack of communication and trust between knowledge producers; which is to an extent rooted in the distinct vocabularies and languages used to define science, knowledge and development. When UTP seminar attendees started embracing the language of Open Science, we noted it as a positive sign of the growth of the OCS field. However, the experience in Belen de Umbria very quickly raised flags about the language we are using to communicate and promote the values of OCS beyond academia and the extent to which it may be inhibiting communication and collaboration between other communities of practice.

Oscar Naranjo, community leader of La Bananera, presenting at OCS workshop in Belen

Should grassroots community groups (such as the educators, farmers and community leaders we met in Belen) who are promoting inclusion and collaboration in their work define themselves as open scientists? Or would this mean they are adhering to yet another externally constructed model of knowledge production to acquire legitimacy and recognition? As tempting as it is to map out all these initiatives under the same umbrella term, the autonomy of their practice should not only be celebrated but encouraged. As a network, we are developing the ability to remain observers and collaborators, rather than taking the role of ‘legitimizing’ agents by introducing more labels and frameworks to describe what they do.

That said, there seemed to be a shared recognition around the benefits of fostering collaboration between diverse communities, as long as existing social and cultural prejudices between groups are addressed. For example, as brought up by professor Jorge Orejuela, indigenous and afro-Colombian knowledge(s) continue to be barred or delegitimized by scientific networks, limiting the capacity of academic researchers to develop a nuanced understanding of afro and indigenous cosmovision and establish meaningful partnerships with these groups. In what ways can the growth of open science practices challenge entrenched judgements regarding different sources of knowledge? How can we as a field foster humility, respect and the recognition of other forms of knowledge as equally valid and worthy of a scientific recognition?

How can OCS reflect ‘alternative’ paths to development?

Coffee beans picked up by local farmers in Risaralda (photo: Josique Lorenzo)

Spending time in Latin America also exposed us to local ideologies that fundamentally challenge the tenets of Western development agendas; making us question if we are doing enough to challenge what we mean by ‘development’ as a network. By exploring alternative perspectives to development in regions where OCS is growing, we will be more likely to define openness in a way that reflects the plurality of worldviews across our network.

While in Colombia, we paid special attention to the philosophy of Buen Vivir (Living Well in English) which posits a holistic and community-based approach to development, emphasizing harmonious cohabitation between humans and nature, as well as the preservation of our social, cultural, historical and ecological heritage. It was evoked by multiple actors throughout our visit, from scholars and university students to coffee producers and community leaders, who believe principles of equity, plurality and sustainability should be the drivers of development -rather than the advancement of private gains that characterized development in the 20th century.

Seminar speakers theorized about what openness and OCS would mean in the context of Buen Vivir and found fascinating connections. Orejuela linked collaboration with notions of community: how can open science support the communitary management of resources?. Giraldo emphasized plurality by proposing the collaborative production of cultural maps to document myths, traditions, symbols that constitute the country’s patrimony and heritage; and finally Lorenzo tapped on to how community based development challenges notions of inclusion and participation. This theme has inspired further research on the links between contextual understandings of openness and development in our network.

Lessons for OCSDNet Research:

Making OCS relevant across contexts requires making the connections with local ideologies and grievances clear, through evidence that demonstrates the potential of OCS, as well as its benefits and challenges. While we have done significant progress in the theorization of openness, in order to make a case for OCS we need to be able to show how OCS can empirically dismantle power structures (in knowledge production, governance, culture, etc.) and achieve its objective of including less visible actors in the development agenda.

Our trip to Pereira also demonstrated openness is an appealing term, yet by no means all encompassing or representative of other inclusive and collaborative knowledge production models. So far the term continues to attract an academically and digitally literate class, which limits our understanding of how ‘openness’ is defined or manifested on the ground. As a network we hope to engage in more nuanced conversations with groups that challenge notions of openness and development as we know it and document this process. Having recognized that Open Science needs not to be introduced but connected, the possibility of locating synergies with other open and collaborative models and building mutual learning relationships with them remains one of our core objectives as we broaden our network.

Finally, the trip to Colombia was also an important lesson in ‘meaning making’ for us at OCSDNet and has inspired us to continue expanding our understanding of openness and explore the multiple iterations it takes in the South and its peripheries. With this in mind, we have identified a new thematic area that explores the meaning and context of openness and development. We will continue to foster these conversations among our members to explore the plurality of regional and local expressions of OCS, and as a result frame a nuanced, multi-layered and context-sensitive understanding of open practices for our network.

Exploring Open Science/Ciencia Abierta in Pereira, Colombia

2015-11-10T01:30:32Z

By: Denisse Albornoz, OCSDNet Coordination Team – Research

This is the first of two posts describing the experience of OCSDNet members who attended the Open Science seminar at the Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira (UTP). The first post will describe what happened at the event and aims to connect our members with the speakers’ work and resources shared. The second post will reflect on our visit after learning from the many ways in which ‘openness’ is understood and practiced in Colombia. We would like to express our gratitude to UTP and our very kind hosts in Colombia for the fascinating networking and learning opportunities we had the privilege of sharing.

Summary

OCSDNet members visited the province of Risaralda in Colombia to attend the two-day seminar ‘Ciencia Abierta/Open Science: Discovering Collaborative Tools for Research and Development’ at the Technological University of Pereira (UTP – Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira)

The seminar brought together scholars from Colombia, Spain and Canada; from diverse interdisciplinary and cultural backgrounds.

The subject of the event was focused around discussions on openness for development.

Exploring Open Science/Ciencia Abierta in Pereira, Colombia

From October 12th to October 19th, OCSDNet members Leslie Chan and Denisse Albornoz visited the province of Risaralda in Colombia to attend the two-day seminar ‘Ciencia Abierta/Open Science: Discovering Collaborative Tools for Research and Development’ at the beautiful campus of the Technological University of Pereira (UTP – Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira). The event was organized by John Mario Rodriguez, UTP engineering faculty, and Josique Lorenzo, an OCSDNet grantee and principal investigator of the ‘Improving Adaptive Capacity with OCS and Participatory Governance’ project in Costa Rica and Colombia.

The seminar brought together UTP students and faculty, with scholars from Colombia, Spain and Canada, working on a diversity of issues, all within the context of exploring open science and what it means within a development context. For instance, some of the discussions focused on the protection of digital rights, biodiversity conservation and experiential pedagogy, defining ‘Open Science’ why it matters, as well as leveraging OCS as a practice to strengthen democracy. Importantly, some discussions also sought to unpack the multiple dimensions and forms ‘openness’ takes in culturally diverse and highly politicized contexts, such as Colombia.

Leslie Chan, the principal investigator of the OCSDNet, kicked off the conversation with his presentation ‘From Open Access to Open Science’. For many, including the speakers, this was their first encounter with the concept of ‘openness’ and its potential to challenge hegemonic models of knowledge production. This introduction invited all participants to unlearn and/or reconsider standard definitions of ‘science’ through critically questioning who we consider to be the holders and producers of ‘legitimate’ knowledge in our societies, what forms of knowledge we deem valid for the process of scientific research, and what are the motivations driving the production and circulation of scientific knowledge today.

“Knowledge production is no longer about ‘expert’ production of knowledge for people to use. It is a public process that involves different players: from undergraduate and graduate students, to citizens and non-specialists alike” Leslie Chan, OCSDNet PI

These remarks set the scene for the next two days, as the speakers, in spite of their diverse disciplinary backgrounds, situated their work in the open science movement in terms of how they enable the participation and inclusion of non-traditional actors in science and research.

What follows are snippets of the speakers’ presentations, their perspective of openness and some of the resources they shared with the OCSDNet team in Pereira.

Openness for Free Cultural Production

Pilar Saenz is one of the Project Coordinators for the Colombian advocacy organization Fundación Karisma. Her talk described how values present in open movements, such as transparency, cooperation and collaboration, could fundamentally transform the legal, education and digital landscape of Colombia. Her presentation resonated with students as she presented the case of Diego Gomez to problematize what it means to share scientific knowledge on the internet today. The commercial logic behind the privatization of scientific research, coupled with outdated copyright laws which have failed to adapt to a post-internet world, continue to impede the free circulation of all types of information; including artistic material, educational resources and cultural products.

“Every day we share movies, pictures, music without asking for permission (…) We want to live in a world in which we can produce culture and share it in order to produce more. There needs to be alternatives in order to keep doing what we are doing without continuously breaking the law”. Pilar Saenz, Karisma Foundation

Pilar urged students to reflect upon their current digital habits, challenge the norms that inhibit their creative capacities as students and citizens, and embrace open movements – such as open software, open education and open access – as viable alternatives on which to ground their creative practices.

Pilar Saenz (Fundacion Karisma), Leslie Chan (OCSDNet) and Josique Lorenzo (CATIE): Panel of Experts

Openness in Landscape Management

Josep Pinto is a Professor in the Physical Geography Department at the University of Girona (UdG) and Director of the Laboratory of Landscape Analysis and Management. While initially unfamiliar to the concept of OCS, he addressed openness from the perspective of biogeography and ‘landscape management’ (a field that studies the characteristics of land, as determined by the interactions of natural and human factors), by connecting participatory consultations and the inclusion of citizens in decision making processes with open science methodologies for advancing democracy and sustainable development.

His description of techniques used to capture the “spirit” of landscapes (wherein ‘spirit’ refers to the symbolic, perceptive and subjective value attributed to land) was particularly striking. Landscape management has been incorporated into European public policy as a mean to settle disputes between public and private interests, with the objective of protecting the symbolic capital of less powerful groups and making their voices heard. This was evocative of social conflicts in Latin America in which the views and values of indigenous communities are not taken into account in state-led development processes. Pintó recommended the use of open science as an important approach towards actively facilitating social inclusion in spaces, whereby citizens are seen as key stakeholders and their views and perceptions can shape the meaning and management of common resources.

Jorge Orejuela (University of Cali), Dean Wilson Arenas (UTP), Martha Giraldo and Leslie Chan (OCSDNet)

Open Access to Information for Governance

Martha Giraldo, an ICT specialist with a long career leading government science, education and culture programming, presented on the lack of access to information in Colombia and how it impedes the strengthening of democracy and transparency in the government apparatus. Her presentation provided a comprehensive overview of what has been done in regards to science, technology and innovation by the state over the years, but called for an ‘information for development plan’ that organizes, centralizes and connects information produced by individual ministries with citizen needs and bridges the gap between citizens and the government.

“I am clear that the path to development is a journey based on collaboration towards finding common goods above individual interests” Martha Giraldo, ICT specialist

Open Science and Research in Education

Three student scientists (ages 7 to 9) and their teacher presented on behalf of Project ONDAS, the Colciencias (Colombian Ministry for Science and Technology) pedagogic project that explores scientific, student-led research as a tool to promote civic culture with Colombian children and youth. Through their ‘Research as a Pedagogic Strategy’ program, students take ownership of the research process by designing research questions, conducting field studies in natural reserves, sharing their findings in online and offline multimodal formats and finally, applying their new knowledge through seven disciplines connected to the project via the school curriculum. The research themes include ancestral knowledges, biodiversity, food security and Buen Vivir, among other key issues selected awaken children’s passion towards preserving their country’s environmental and cultural resources.

“The skills and capacities children learn help them understand science, but also gives them an understanding of how to live responsibly and happily as citizens” Maribel Incapiel, Teacher from Proyecto Ondas

Students from Proyecto ONDAS presenting about their findings

Openness in Community Management of the Environment

Dr. Jorge Orejuela is the director of the Cali Botanical Garden and faculty at the University of Cali. His presentation was a powerful description of the role of citizen science in indigenous communities in Nariño and Afro-Colombian communities in Chocó and Valle del Cauca. His case studies focused on two spontaneous manifestations of openness, the first being, youth-led initiatives to collect and publish knowledge about local biodiversity, and the second, community-led, eco-tourism models designed to boost the region’s economic activity with minimum environmental impact. Both were developed to foster stronger appreciation for local identities, territories and knowledge, but are also a sign of internally devised mechanisms to document and ensure the cultural and environmental survival of communities.

Citizen science was thus proposed by Orejuela, as a method to generate, circulate and exchange informational resources (within and outside these communities) to resist the interests of dominant groups pushing free market agendas over holistic approaches to development endemic to the region. His appeal framed citizen science as a powerful political tool to support the ongoing struggle of indigenous peoples against decolonization and their appeal for self-determination and autonomy in Colombia and Latin America.

Openness and Collaboration for Development in Colombia

Finally, John Mario Rodriguez brought the two day seminar to a close, powerfully situating ‘openness’ in Colombia’s current moment in history, as the state approaches the end of a 50-year-long gruesome war with the FARC. He posed, “How can openness help us produce knowledge to deal with the upcoming challenges of the post-conflict era?,” questioning the role openness can take in reconciliation processes, as well as encouraging the UTP community to reflect on the challenges of their political and social landscape. On this note, he encouraged students, particularly from the Engineering and Environmental Studies programs, to actively seek opportunities to collaborate, promote inter-disciplinary learning and maximize their innovative capacities by working together.

Post-Seminar Action Plan

Learnings picked up at the seminar have already started paying off. The motivation of highly driven students and faculty of UTP has crystallized into a series of initiatives to include Open Access in the university’s programming. Starting with the launch of a student-run Open Access working group, led by student leader Adriana Santa, with the support of John Mario, the Dean of Industrial Engineering Wilson Arenas, and Leslie Chan as an advisor. The group will meet regularly to discuss the what opening scientific research could mean for UTP and identify tools and opportunities moving forward.

Seminar speakers and organizers meeting with UTP Rector Luis Fernando Gaviria

Along the same lines, the library department enthusiastically announced their plans to continue digitizing research articles and increasing access to digital repositories for faculty and students. And in an unexpected yet fortunate turn of events, the university’s rector, Luis Fernando Gaviria Trujillo, welcomed the seminar speakers into his office to discuss ideas around openness in public education, and with great interest in what Open Science offers, he requested a proposal to incorporate open policies in UTP’s research and education programs and put UTP at the forefront of the open science movement in Colombia.

As OCSDNet, we are always excited to see projects that champion openness and collaboration emerge, but after spending time with the incredibly kind and intellectually curious community at UTP, we are rooting for them and will be closely following their initiatives as they continue to grow and consolidate. We trust that the lens of openness taken up after this seminar, coupled with UTP’s mission to advocate for socially responsible science and technology practices, will be a powerful combination to equip and inspire students, public universities and intellectual and cultural communities to continue collaborating to solve Colombia’s pressing development challenges.

Thank you UTP for a wonderful experience!

Relevant Resources

Pilar’s Presentation
CoKrea – A collaborative co-creation experience of Open Educational Resources that assesses the potential of these resources in the transformation of teaching practices.
HackBo: Community managed Hackerspace in Bogotá.
La Referencia: Latin American network of institutional open scientific research repositories
Guia de la investigacion e innovacion del Proyecto Ondas
European Landscape Convention
World Rural Landscapes

Interview with Leslie Chan, Principal Investigator of OCSDNet

2015-10-29T09:02:16Z

Coordination Team member, Becky Hillyer, interviews Leslie Chan, Principal Investigator of OCSDNet, about the current state of the network and his experience working in the field of Open Science and Open Access over the past twenty years.

– – –

Interview Questions:

What is OCSDNet, in a nutshell?
Why did you seek to initiate a network like this?
What are some of the common themes that link the projects together?
What are some of the challenges that project teams and the network as a whole have had to overcome, so far?
Are governments, civil society and/or the public more receptive to the work done by networks like OCSDNet today than they were 20 years ago? How and why?
Why is it important and timely to understand the connections between “open science” and “development?”
Given the important linkages between Open Science and the potential implications for development, have these topics been addressed at all in the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?
If someone would like to get involved with the work of the network, what opportunities exist?
Could you tell us more about the ‘manifesto’ that the network is hoping to create? Why is this important?

– – –

1. What is OCSDNet, in a nutshell?

Well, in a nutshell, OCSDNet is a network of 12 research projects which span about 26 countries. The projects are led by teams located in Southern countries, and some projects have partner institutions in Northern countries. All projects are focused around one or more of four core themes, all of which seek to understand the barriers and opportunities for Open Science and its connections to development.

The project teams are quite unique, in that they are composed of researchers from diverse backgrounds – including natural scientists, social scientists, law practitioners, digital media enthusiasts, open hardware advocates, environmentalists and others. They use contextually relevant understandings of ‘openness’ to understand the local dynamics of how knowledge is created, shared and used by relevant audiences.

As a network, we encourage all teams to share project learnings in order to create broader understandings of how and why knowledge is framed and used, and by whom. We seek to understanding the implications of knowledge paradigms for development research and practice. In doing so, OCSDNet teams interrogate and deconstruct many power relations – including questions around who creates and accesses knowledge, and which forms of knowledge are considered ‘legitimate’ by elite actors and why.

2. You are currently the Principal Investigator of OCSDNet. Why did you seek to initiate a network like this?

I have a long-standing interest in Open Access in particular, particularly around how knowledge flows from one part of the world to the other. I have been campaigning for Open Access now for the past 20 years. All of this work has got me thinking about the power dynamics of knowledge production. Over time, it occurred to me that Open Access is really only just the beginning – you have access to the literature, but that’s not the end to research! It’s only the product.

So, it occurred to me that opening up the entire research process is important. Not just the literature, but the data collection process, methods, tools for collaborating; all of those should be a part of the knowledge production process.

When I saw that the IDRC had become interested in supporting openness in development, I was happy to put these ideas into practice and submit a proposal. In fact, they had been encouraging me to solicit ideas about how openness could become more integrated into their own funding models for quite a while now. But this is very much a pilot project. We want to see whether or not Open Science is in fact a positive opportunity for development, or whether it is just merely another way of recreating the status quo, while the same elite actors maintain the majority of power in knowledge production processes.

3. Many of the network projects seem to be quite diverse, with teams using different tools and methods to investigate a variety of research questions. What are some of the common themes that link the projects together?

We recognised, from the beginning, that we would have a variety of types of submissions. So we set up a framework with a set of key themes – including motivations for the research, institutional frameworks, etc. We wanted to look at some of the specific outcomes and impacts of different Open Science practices, both positive and negative.

All of the projects needed to identify the particular themes that they wanted to work on, and how that would relate to the overall framework for the network; which is, in a nutshell, that knowledge should be a form of common good. As such, all of the teams are interested in ways that knowledge can be used and sustained in a common way. This is the key linkage between all of the projects. And with this linkage at its core, we encourage the projects to approach open science in a way that they feel is appropriate to their specific context.

For instance, one of our research teams in Lebanon is working with citizens to gather and map scientific data about pollution. They have quite a ‘traditional’ approach to science in terms of their data collection methods, analysis etc… And so, that may be a project that is more recognisable to someone from an environmental science background, even though there is a strong citizen science component embedded into the project.

And the social science teams, their approach to research is obviously different. They have more of a critical theory approach. They often do text analysis, they have certain interview techniques and research methods that are more qualitative in nature. Another example is that we have researchers looking at open hardware initiatives in Indonesia. They are trying to examine the behaviour of workshop participants using particular observation approaches. We also have a team looking at intellectual property rights and commercialisation in Kenya, and how these growing trends could potentially interact with an open science agenda. They are seeking to understand existing policy frameworks – so they have a type of case study approach, from a policy standpoint.

What we are seeing are some emerging, common interests from many of the projects. For instance, the notion of ‘citizen science,’ which values strong participation from average citizens of local communities. This is a common theme, or approach… in Lebanon, in Kyrgyzstan… It is important to include local people not only for data collection purposes, but also to encourage recognition of the importance of environmental impact and climate change, and to understand what local knowledge is already being used to address some of these core questions.

4. What are some of the challenges that project teams and the network as a whole have had to overcome, so far?

Many of the project teams are comprised of partners from different regions and backgrounds. Therefore, some of these projects are new in terms of the project and methods, but also in regards to the collaborators with whom they are working. Collaboration is great, in principle… but working together in practice can be challenging due to different cultures, institutional practices, differences in disciplinary training, language. These all play into being able to communicate effectively as a team. Some of the teams have more experience doing this than others.

For instance, we find in Latin America, there is quite a strong culture of collaboration. Many researchers share the same language, and often there is institutional recognition for Open Science and Open Access. However, in other regions, we have noticed some degree of tension in this regard. But all of these things are very much a part of what we want to understand, as a network. Documenting all of these tensions and understanding them is important. Collaboration is not easy!

Another challenge is the language dimension. At the moment, no one from the network coordination team speaks fluent French, and we have quite a large project team working in several French-Speaking African countries. So, there are communication gaps, for sure. We also have several Spanish-speaking people in network, and fortunately we do have a Spanish speaker on the coordination team now. In trying to justify practices of ‘openness,’ we must also be careful and cognisant of the dominance of the english language and about placing pressure on non-native English speakers on the team. There are a lot of power dimensions with language as well. In fact, in many cases, research teams are finding that the vocabulary of ‘open science’ in english does not always translate well within their respective contexts. Many of them are having to invent new vocabularies when interacting with local communities.

5. You have a long trajectory of championing the open science movement in Canada and abroad. Are governments, civil society and/or the public more receptive to the work done by networks like OCSDNet today than they were 20 years ago? How and why?

Ten years ago, if you mentioned the word ‘open science,’ most people wouldn’t know what you were talking about. But today, most academics will have at least heard of it. Whether they understand it or not is another question. I’d say there is a lot of misunderstanding. But it’s no longer a ‘strange’ term. It’s debated publicly.

One of the most common misunderstandings is around these new, bogus Open Access journals that are taking advantage of authors, who have to pay a fee to have their work published. But that aside, there are still many academics who are tied to the idea of ‘prestige’ and the ‘brand power’ of particular journals. They are content with the status quo because they feel that traditional journals are working with their own purposes…Even though other young and emerging authors and scholars are being left out of these systems, including many promising researchers located in Southern countries.

In terms of other changes…there has been some at the government level. Today, all of the major research intensive countries (OECD countries) now have OA policies in regards to the research that they fund. Earlier this year, for example, three major research funders in Canada have agreed to make their publications Open Access, no later than twelve months after publication. This is an important step in the right direction. People are beginning to understand that OS allows researchers to maximize the scope and usage of their research. And that’s ultimately about what research funding is about: finding social purposes.

6. Why is it important and timely to understand the connections between “open science” and “development?”

Going back to the question of research and research findings, one of the purposes of research is to understand the issues of people who are being affected by particular factors. Take for instance: understanding why and how farmers are impacted by climate change. Those farmers should be able to access that research. But currently, that research is not accessible because it is generally locked away in journal articles that are very expensive. Therefore, many groups and individuals who need access to this knowledge the most are being excluded from it. And indeed, much of that knowledge is being extracted from communities and exported to the Global North. Therefore, opening up scientific research processes is intrinsically connected to the field of development.

Another thing – until recently – many major science and development projects have been limited to the Global North. (for instance – the creation of GM food, large infrastructure projects, etc..). Most of these project have been top-down in nature and have not really sought to engage with issues or ideas emanating from local communities. So for us, we feel that open science should be driven by locally relevant research questions and agendas. If science could work with local communities to understand what they need, and involve those communities in taking part in the research… to us, that would be key to linking science and development. That would be good science and good development.

7. Given the important linkages between Open Science and the potential implications for development, have these topics been addressed at all in the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?

Science is not specifically addressed as a vehicle towards achieving the SDGs. However, because many of these goals are so broad, this allows us to perhaps insert something about “openness” and participation, which could help to ensure that these goals could be better achieved. For example – one of the goals has to do with building sustainable infrastructure. Most people might think of this as bridges, roads… etc.. which is true. But increasingly, due to the importance of networks in knowledge production, connectivity, including sustainable e-infrastructure, should be essential considerations of any development planning. So by advocating the importance of science and development, we also need to remind policymakers that in order for these linkages to be realised, you need to have the necessary infrastructure: the network, the tools, the human capacity. So building these capacities, training a new generation of people – this is part of achieving these goals. And these tools really need to be locally relevant, taking into the needs of local communities.

(Click here to view an online webinar by Leslie Chan, on the topic of Open Science and potential connections with the SDGs.)

8. If someone would like to get involved with the work of the network, what opportunities exist?

Our network is still quite young – only 1.5 years into the process. And many of the projects are only six months in. So we are still in the process of forming and understanding our network and projects, while trying to define the boundaries of the field of open science. So, we welcome any like-minded individuals, organisations or initiatives that share our common principle to join us, think with us, challenge us. Are we being naive? Realistic? Are we overlooking obvious, fundamental things that we should be considering? By engaging with our projects, we are already connecting with many local initiatives that we didn’t know about previously. We are very excited to be learning about the various actors and initiatives working at the forefront of open science and development and will try to map out and connect with many of these initiatives.

At the very minimum, anyone who is interested can subscribe to our external newsletter, by adding your email address to the main page of our website (lower, left-hand corner). You can also join us for some of our events. In February, we will be hosting a public forum in Bangkok, so you will be welcomed to attend that. In the very near future, we will also be developing a “Manifesto” for the network, and we would like to get as much external input as possible for that.

9. Could you tell us more about the ‘manifesto’ that the network is hoping to create? Why is this important?

Yes, we are hoping to draft a manifesto around the principles and ideas that are guiding the work of the network. And again, this is meant to be a work in progress. So people can read this document, and debate about it…And we can share common dialogue about what Open Science really means, and what the implications are for the field of development.

Any other questions for Leslie or the network? Email them to info@ocsdnet.org or Tweet us @OCSDNet.

De jeunes passionnés pour une science plus ouverte au Sénégal

2015-10-27T10:20:55Z

This blog is Part 2 of a blog written by Assane Fall, an Open Access advocate in Senegal and junior researcher with OCSDNet. Part 1 of the blog can be accessed here.

– – –

SUMMARY:

Last week, the OCSDNet Team from Projet SOHA in Senegal hosted a lively seminar to celebrate Open Access Week 2015.

The event was hosted by local scholars and advocates of Open Access in West Africa, and presentations were given about local examples of Open Science and how students can both access and contribute towards the production of new knowledge.

Open Access advocates in Senegal call for a national repository for research articles and data, as well as national framework and protocols for making research more open in the country. This will involve strong engagement with policy makers and will require OA advocates to make their demands heard.

– – –

De jeunes passionnés pour une science plus ouverte au Sénégal

By: Assane Fall

Le projet SOHA, en collaboration avec la Bibliothèque universitaire de l’UCAD et le Consortium des Bibliothèques de l’Enseignement Supérieur du Sénégal (COBESS) a célébré la semaine internationale du libre accès (Open Access Week) le mercredi 21 octobre 2015 à la bibliothèque de l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar. Cette rencontre a vu la participation de plusieurs couches : Enseignants-chercheurs, Professionnels, Etudiants at Promoteurs de logiciel libre.

Au programme nous avons assisté à six communications très intéressantes avec comme thème général : « L’Accès ouvert en relation avec la science ouverte, le droit d’auteur et les logiciels libres » et des sous thèmes tels que :

La dynamique du libre accès en Afrique ;
Les enjeux et perspectives de l’Accès ouvert à l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar ;
La science ouverte et l’identité culturelle ;
L’open source et le libre accès ;
La création de contenu par le libre.

Ainsi, cette journée a été marquée par les interventions de deux jeunes qui militent pour le libre accès. Deux jeunes qui ont communiqué et séduit le public et ont reçu des distinctions de la part des « ambassadeurs » du Libre accès, leurs professeurs M. Bernard Dione, Directeur des Etudes de l’EBAD et Mme Dièyi Diouf, Maitre-Assistante à l’EBAD, co-chercheure principale du projet SOHA qui les ont élevés au rang de défenseur du Libre accès.

Il s’agit de Binta Barry, Etudiante à l’Ecole de Bibliothécaires, Archivistes et Documentalistes de l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (EBAD / UCAD) et membre du projet SOHA qui a fait une communication sur «Science ouverte, identités culturelles et appartenance ». Dans son intervention elle a mis l’accent sur des concepts riches et variés comme :

L’apport de la langue française par rapport à nos cultures ;
Ce qui peut nous éloigner des autres ;
Ce qui peut nous rapprocher des autres ;
L’accès aux savoirs locaux…

L’autre jeune défenseur du libre accès s’appelle Assane Fall, Bibliothécaire / Blogueur et Assistant du Dr. Diéyi Diouf dans le projet SOHA. Dans sa communication relative à la création de contenu par le libre, il a présenté au public un tutoriel sur « Comment contribuer sur Wikipédia ». Une présentation très pratique qui explique le fonctionnement de Wikipédia, ce qu’il faut pour contribuer et comment ajouter du contenu.

Cette nouvelle génération à la fois passionnée et engagée, témoigne de l’avenir prometteur qu’a le libre accès dans nos pays. Un soutien minimum leur permettra de booster une science beaucoup plus ouverte.

Cependant, il faut noter qu’il y a des choses à améliorer surtout pour la communication et la sensibilisation malgré les réalisations qui ont été menées pour le rayonnement du libre accès au Sénégal. Le public considère le plus souvent que le libre accès est une opportunité géniale pour la recherche scientifique mais le manque d’informations (comment identifier des revues en libre accès, quels sont les avantages en publiant des résultats de recherche en accès libre…) reste parfois un blocage.

Ainsi le principal défi sera de communiquer au maximum avec le public et principalement les décideurs, les chercheurs et les étudiants afin qu’ils comprennent les tenants et les aboutissants du libre accès. Pour réussir ce challenge, il faut un cadre unique de concertation, une plateforme nationale de dépôt institutionnel et tout ceci accompagner par une politique nationale sur le libre accès.

Open Access and Open Science in Argentina | Tensiones y oportunidades de los repositorios digitales abiertos

2015-10-20T16:03:32Z

En Español

By: Mariano Fressoli, Valeria Arza y Guillermina Actis

OCSDNet is participating in #OpenAccessWeek2015. In this blog, Mariano Fressoli and Valeria Azra write about Open Access digital repositories and the culture of Open Science in Argentina.

Mariano and Valeria are a part of an OCSDNet research project seeking to understand how practices of Openness can impact ‘alternative science’ agendas, and the potential implications for development.

Click here for the first blog in the series, whereby Assane Fall discusses his experience with Open Access as a young librarian in Senegal.

– – –

Blog Summary:

Recognising the issues of closed-access publishing of scientific research, Argentina has created a law stating that all researchers must publish their work and data in publicly accessible digital repositories.

While digital repositories do come with their fair share of financial and logistical challenges, open access data and publications also offer important benefits for science, research and development.

– – –

Open Access and Open Science in Argentina

It’s not uncommon to hear that scientific knowledge is “universal” and “beneficial to us all.” However, accessing this knowledge is often complicated, particularly in countries that are often on the periphery of knowledge production regimes. This is because the results of scientific research are published in journals or specialized books that cannot be found in the average library. Also, international scientific editorials and databases like Elsevier, Project Muse, JSTOR and others charge exorbitant amounts of money to manage journal collections. In Argentina, the government spends approximately 20 million dollars a year for national scientific institutions to have access to relevant publications. However, most people do not belong to these institutions and therefore simply cannot access the majority of scientific research produced both globally and locally.

The National Law for the Creation of Digital, Institutional and Open Access Repositories, enacted in Argentina in 2013, creates an opportunity to change this trend. It opens up the results of publicly funded scientific research not only to other scientists but also to citizens in general.

In short, repositories are digital libraries. Since the enactment of this law, scientists are obliged to file their scientific production in a digital repository no longer than six months following its publication. They must also file any data produced in publicly funded projects within a five-year period after publication

Despite the benefits they entail, the repositories face some obstacles from inside and outside the academic community.

Challenges of Digital Repositories

First of all, scientific assessment schemes worldwide promote publication in international journals whose access is normally restricted. In practice, this has favoured a few publishers who have consequently come to dominate the science and technology publication market. Profit margins for the publishing companies are significant: 40% for scientific journals and 16% for scientific books. Clearly, scientific publishers lobby to keep those margins as high as possible. Now, as Open Access becomes more and more popular, companies are simultaneously seeking ways to profit from open access publications.

At the same time, the closed-access publication culture is deeply embedded into the policy and practice of many scientific research institutions. When researchers plan their research projects and papers, they are often pressured to publish in the most prestigious journals. Indeed, where to publish a research output has become more important as a ranking tool than who actually reads the material. A cultural change within the scientific community is required to modify these practices. This must be supported and endorsed by new forms of evaluation.

Digital repositories are just one of many practices of the emerging open science movement. Openness is in tension with knowledge commercialization policies that have dominated the Science and Technology Policy agenda since the late eighties. In fact, digital repositories truly affect the day-to-day work of the liaison offices within universities and other public labs. These offices search for productive applications of scientific and technological knowledge developed in public institutions. When private firms are directly involved in the research process, they request exclusive rights on the use of the knowledge outputs. Similarly, when research outputs could be potentially commercialised, liaison offices are intent to protect that knowledge from open distribution in order to offer exclusive rights to private partners in the future.

Although Open Access Repositories Law contemplates exceptions for cases subject to confidentiality clauses, the truth is that open access by default, as enacted by the law, complicates matters further to liaison offices. A related concern expressed by this sector is the extent to which sufficient technological infrastructure exists to enable local actors to benefit from open access. The risk exists that foreign firms would be in the position to exploit locally produced knowledge much faster, driving local firms out through product market competition.

Benefits of Digital Repositories

There are other initiatives similar to the Argentinian law in Europe and Latin America (Peru, for example, just approved a similar law; Brazil is currently discussing the matter in Congress); therefore there are already several countries that recognize the important benefits that open repositories can facilitate.

Benefits are quite clear for scientific production. Open access avoids duplication and increases the common pool of data and resources that scientists could draw from in future research. Moreover, the information collected in public repository could be used as inputs to assess scientific performance.

Moreover, public repositories bring science closer to day-to-day problems. Anyone with Internet access can, for instance research scientific advances to treat diseases or get to know the latest gadgets that could change their lifestyles. By getting closer to society at large, open science practices could facilitate the development of new questions, which, in turn, could create new research enquiries that drives scientific production closer to the community’s demands.

The new Open Access Repositories Laws in Argentina and other countries of the region is an opportunity to embrace the benefits of Open Science. To be sure, tensions and maybe some resistance will follow. However, sooner or later, the advantages of sharing and the easiness of doing so using online tools will push for policy promotion of open science

Tensiones y oportunidades de los repositorios digitales abiertos

De: Mariano Fressoli, Valeria Arza y Guillermina Actis

Resumen:

En reconocimiento de los problemas que generan las políticas de acceso pago a publicaciones científicas, Argentina ha creado una Ley Nacional que establece que todos los investigadores financiados con fondos públicos deben publicar sus artículos y datos en repositorios digitales abiertos.

Mientras que los repositorios enfrentan una cantidad importante de desafíos financieros, logísticos y resistencias políticas, el acceso abierto a los datos y publicaciones también ofrece

– – –

Acceso Abierto y la ciencia abierta en Argentina

Se suele decir que el conocimiento científico es universal y beneficia a todos. Pero acceder a este conocimiento no es una tarea sencilla. Los resultados de investigación se publican en revistas o libros especializados que no se encuentran en cualquier biblioteca. Además, las editoriales y portales científicos internacionales son pocos y cobran sumas exorbitantes para gestionar este acervo. El Estado argentino gasta aproximadamente 20 millones de dólares al año para que los investigadores tengan acceso a publicaciones científicas. Sin embargo, el resto de la población no dispone de ese acceso.

La Ley Nacional de Creación de Repositorios Digitales Institucionales de Acceso Abierto, vigente en Argentina desde el 2013, permite cambiar esta tendencia al ofrecer un acervo de conocimiento especializado y de calidad no sólo a otros científicos sino al público de a pié.

Los repositorios son bibliotecas virtuales en los cuales, a partir de la ley, los científicos deben archivar su producción a los seis meses de que haya sido publicada en cualquier medio. También deben guardar ahí, en un plazo no mayor a los cinco años, los datos de las investigaciones financiadas con fondos públicos.

A pesar de los beneficios que generan, los repositorios enfrentan una serie de obstáculos dentro y fuera de la comunidad académica.

Desafíos de los Repositorios Digitales

En primer lugar, la política de evaluación del desempeño científico en todo el mundo promueve la publicación en revistas internacionales de alto prestigio que normalmente son de acceso restringido. En la práctica esto ha favorecido a un puñado de editoriales que domina el mercado de publicaciones de ciencia y tecnología. La rentabilidad en este mercado es altísima: 40% para las revistas y un 16% para los libros. Claramente las editoriales presionan por no perder estos privilegios y en cambio buscan lucrar con el acceso abierto.

Además, esta tradición de evaluación está instalada en la cultura de producción de conocimiento científico. Los investigadores construyen conocimiento con el horizonte de llegar a publicar en las revistas de mayor prestigio de ese mercado. Importa más de qué revista se trata, que los posibles destinatarios de ese conocimiento. Modificar esta práctica requiere de un cambio cultural por parte de los científicos, que a su vez debe ser incentivado por nuevas formas de evaluación.

Adicionalmente, los repositorios son la punta de lanza de una nueva forma de hacer ciencia, denominada ciencia abierta, que se basa en la colaboración entre científicos y otros actores sociales. Este modelo de apertura de la ciencia se encuentra en tensión con las políticas de comercialización que dominan la agenda de Ciencia y Tecnología desde fines de los ‘80. Los repositorios digitales necesariamente modifican la tarea de las oficinas de vinculación tecnológica. Estas oficinas se encargan de buscarle un uso productivo al conocimiento científico y tecnológico desarrollado en instituciones públicas. Cuando la investigación involucra empresas privadas, éstas suelen requerir derechos de exclusividad y/o confidencialidad sobre el conocimiento generado. Si bien la ley contempla excepciones para casos sujetos a cláusulas de confidencialidad, lo cierto es que una política que automatice y reglamente el libre acceso dificulta la labor de las oficinas de vinculación tecnológica. Una preocupación asociada que manifiesta este sector es hasta qué punto el entramado productivo local tiene las capacidades tecnológicas para aprovechar el conocimiento en libre acceso o si, en cambio, no serán empresas del extranjero, quienes más rápido puedan desarrollar productos con el conocimiento generado localmente.

Beneficios de los Repositorios Digitales

Existen otras iniciativas similares a la ley argentina en Europa y en América Latina (En Perú por ejemplo, se acaba de aprobar una ley similar; en Brazil se está discutiendo la posibilidad en el congreso); ya son varios los países que reconocen que los repositorios abiertos generan importantes beneficios.

Desde el punto de vista de la producción científica, al poner en libre disponibilidad resultados e insumos de los proceso de investigación, se evita la duplicación de esfuerzos y se multiplica el material disponible para el análisis. Toda esta información sirve, además, para que las instituciones científicas puedan construir sus propios indicadores para evaluar su desempeño.

Por otro lado, para la sociedad en general, los repositorios acercan la producción científica a la vida cotidiana de las personas. Cualquiera con acceso a internet puede consultar, por ejemplo, acerca de avances en el tratamiento de ciertas enfermedades, o tomar conocimiento sobre los usos de tecnologías que modifican su estilo de vida. Este acercamiento podría eventualmente facilitar la construcción de nuevas preguntas, direccionando mejor la investigación hacia las demandas de las comunidades.

La Ley Nacional de Creación de Repositorios Digitales Institucionales de Acceso Abierto en Argentina, y leyes similares en la región, representan una oportunidad en la comunidad científica para adoptar los beneficios de la Ciencia Abierta. De seguro habrá tensión y resistencia, pero tarde o temprano, las ventajas de compartir y la facilidad de hacerlo utilizando herramientas de la web terminarán por imponer políticas de mayor apertura.

Le libre accès vu par un jeune sénégalais

2015-10-19T08:38:53Z

Assane Fall, a young librarian from Senegal, blogs about his experience learning about Open Access and its relevance for development in Africa. He and his team are preparing for Open Access Week 2015 in Senegal, which officially kicks off today. Stay tuned for additional updates about the event!

Assane is part of Projet SOHA, an OCSDNet research project which seeks to build networks and influence policy in French-speaking Africa and Haiti, to identify and overcome challenges for open science and development.

– – –

By: Assane Fall

Follow Assane on Twitter @azoubig

Entendu pour la première fois lors d’un cours à l’EBAD, le libre accès aux publications scientifiques a fini par être un concept fort en moi. Pour mieux comprendre le terme et ses avantages pour l’Afrique, j’ai mené des recherches un peu partout sur le net (moteurs de recherches, revues scientifiques, réseaux sociaux…) et parfois je tombais sur des articles et des communications de certains de mes professeurs à l’EBAD tels que Dr. Diéyi Diouf et Dr. Djibril Diakhaté.

Depuis lors je voie le libre accès comme étant un levier de développement dans la mesure où l’information scientifique et technique devient plus accessible. L’autre dimension du libre accès est qu’il offre aux chercheurs africains, la possibilité de se faire connaitre et surtout de faire connaitre leurs productions scientifiques. Deux avantages que j’ai eus à souligner dans mon résumé de communication lors de la conférence collective présentée au colloque ” Critiquer la Science aujourd’hui : Pourquoi, Comment”, tenu à Rimouski le 25 mai 2015 sous la coordination de la Professeure Florence Piron.

Ainsi, comme chaque année, le Sénégal célèbre la semaine internationale du libre accès le Jeudi 22 octobre 2015. Avec le Projet SOHA, j’ai la chance d’être au cœur des préparations et j’aurai à faire une présentation sur comment créer un compte et contribuer dans Wikipédia, ce qui me permettra d’acquérir une expérience de plus dans le domaine. Des communications sur le libre accès par des professeurs et des professionnels seront également au rendez-vous avec la participation des institutions telles que la BU de l’UCAD, le COBESS, et le CNDST en collaboration avec le Projet SOHA.

Pour ma première participation à cet évènement, mon apport sera beaucoup plus axé sur la communication digitale de par ma présence sur les réseaux sociaux. Une manière pour moi, de dire aux chercheurs et étudiants présents sur Internet que le libre accès s’offre à eux et qu’ils ont un grand intérêt à l’exploiter. Mon blog pourra également servir d’outil de communication pour informer et sensibiliser le public

Les preparations pour Open Access Week 2015

Collaboration in Disaster Recovery Planning for the Caribbean

2015-10-09T22:03:18Z

By: Lila Rao and Maurice McNaughton (Mona School of Business and Management – The University of the West Indies) of the Disaster Preparedness through Open Ontologies Project

Summary:

• Many Small Island Developing States (SIDS) do not have the resources necessary for the development of comprehensive Disaster Recovery Plans (DRPs) and would benefit from collaborating to develop them.

• This OCSDNet project uses a collaborative approach for the development of a common language/vocabulary, which will be used to represent the domain of DRP in the form of an ontology.

• This project is focused on islands in the Caribbean region and a critical first stage of the development process required identifying and understanding the function of the existing stakeholders that have some level or responsibility or interest in DRP whether at the local or regional level.

• So far we have developed a partnership with two key stakeholders and they have been extremely willing to discuss their initiatives and share the documents that they have developed/are developing. We have found that stakeholders are very willing to share their information and documentation once they understand how our work aligns with and can support their strategic objectives. Thus, the best way to establish this collaboration is to show how there will be mutual benefits from sharing resources.

—-

The range, incidence and scale of recent natural disasters in the Caribbean region highlight the need for a holistic approach to disaster planning, preparation and recovery. The primary natural disasters facing the islands of the Caribbean are earthquakes and hurricanes although some are also prone to volcanic activity. The flooding and torrential rains that can come with these hurricanes or even tropical storms can also be considered natural disasters themselves [1].

Figure 1 – Hurricane Ivan (2004) [2]

Figure 2 – Seismic and plate tectonic setting (Caribbean Region) [3]

As recently as August 2015, the island of Dominica was hit by Tropical Storm Erika which resulted in the death of 20 persons and the need for the country’s prime minister to seek international help after the cost of the storm’s damage was estimated to be half the country’s annual GDP [4]. The major damage was not from the wind, but rather the flooding and mudslides caused by the rainfall that the storm brought with it.

Figure 3 – Destruction from Tropical Storm Erika (Dominica) [4]

In January 2010, a devastating earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 struck Haiti, killing more than 160,000 and displacing close to 1.5 million people [5]. The scale of the disaster made the coordination of the relief effort extremely complex and difficult.

Figure 4 – Destruction from Earthquake in Haiti [6]

Other natural disasters to affect the Caribbean region in recent times include:

In 2007: Hurricane Dean caused significant damage to the islands of Jamaica and St. Lucia
In 2004: Hurricane Ivan caused significant damage to the islands of Grenada, Jamaica and the Cayman Islands
In 1995: the Soufriere Hills volcano in Monserrat became active resulting in a significant portion of the population to evacuate the country

Disaster recovery plans (DRPs) seek to ensure that entities function effectively before, during and following a disaster in order to save lives and reduce economic losses [7]. However the development of comprehensive DRPs require significant resources, the coordination and collaboration of a number of stakeholders and access to a number of disparate data sources. Given the vulnerability (which seems likely to increase with climate change) of the Caribbean region, and indeed many Small Island Developing States (SIDS), to natural disasters and their lack of the resources required to develop, test and maintain comprehensive DRPs, it would be beneficial for countries and public and private sector agencies in the region to collaborate and share data, information and knowledge in order to make DRP development more cost effective and improve DRP quality and effectiveness.

A major obstacle to this collaborative approach is the ambiguity, inconsistency and communication problems that often arises when autonomous entities must work together and disparate data sources are to be integrated and shared. We believe that the solution to this problem is the collaborative development of a common representation of the domain including a common language/vocabulary. This representation will be in the form of an ontology, which is defined as a formal description of a domain that can be shared among different applications and expressed in a language that can be used for reasoning [8]. Our project seeks to use a collaborative approach to the development of a DRP ontology which will be developed as an open resource for others to reuse.

An important objective of the project is to demonstrate to key stakeholders and DRP entities throughout the Caribbean region that there are considerable benefits to be gained from this collaborative approach to solving common regional problems and more specifically Disaster Recovery Planning. Given that the ontology will be a representation of the domain and will provide a consistent/common vocabulary through which all stakeholders can communicate it is imperative that these stakeholders are involved in its development. Additionally, the existing documentation of these entities is a valuable input into understanding the domain as it exists. Therefore we recognized that the first stage of this project would not be about the development of the ontology, but rather about understanding who the existing stakeholders and entities are, what their objectives are and what documents they have developed or are in the process of developing. We want to ensure buy-in from these regional entities who will contribute to and use the open resource. Therefore, over the past months, we have been focused on building such partnerships and examining their existing documentation.

Thus far, we have been fortunate to secure buy-in from two important existing regional stakeholder groups, The Enhancing Knowledge & Application of Comprehensive Disaster Management (EKACDM) group and The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA).

Partnership 1:

The Enhancing Knowledge & Application of Comprehensive Disaster Management (EKACDM) group (http://www.uwi.edu/EKACDM/index.aspx) is working on a five-year research project to implement the CARICOM (Caribbean Community and Common Market) Enhanced Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Framework and has as one of its key outcomes, “the creation of a regional network which generates, manages, and disseminates knowledge on disaster management.” The importance of this relationship was not just that our work aligned with some of their key outcomes, but also that they had already established relationships with regional stakeholders and were very willing to introduce us to relevant people.

This led to the establishment of a relationship with the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) a stakeholder that we had recognized from the outset of this project was going to critical to the regional collaboration we were seeking. To get interest from the EKACDM group we demonstrated to them that our project is aligned with a number of the intended outcomes of the EKACDM project, thus we have been able to build a collaboration of mutual benefit. One shared intended outcomes defined by EKACDM is improved knowledge generation, and management and dissemination for Caribbean Disaster Management. We demonstrated that the development of an open DRP ontology would help achieve these shared intended outcomes. EKACDM therefore agreed to provide support to our project through key stakeholder consultation, access to domain expertise, access to their documents and assistance in the validation of the ontology when developed. The documents are already proving to be useful as many of them have glossaries which are valuable in understanding and developing the common vocabulary for the domain. In turn, EKACDM will have access to the final ontology and it will become an important component of the group’s Caribbean Disaster Portal which they are developing.

Partnership 2:

Through our relationship with EKACDM, we were able to link into a second important regional stakeholder group, the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA), which has also committed to lending support to our project. CDEMA is a regional inter-governmental agency for disaster management in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The Agency will be hosting one of the largest gathering of professionals and academics in the field of disaster management in the Caribbean region in December 2015 and we have been invited to present. This provides us with an ideal opportunity to build awareness of our project throughout the region. We are also in discussion with CDEMA about hosting a stakeholder consultation workshop at their event.

From the work carried out so far, we have leveraged important relationships with groups who are already working within the domain of interest and building partnerships with these groups. Given that these are already established groups with a strong regional footprint, we found the best strategy for getting this buy-in was to demonstrate how our project supports and creates synergy with their already existing objectives.

Given our affiliation with Mona School of Business & Management (MSBM), one may wonder how a business school becomes associated with a project of this nature. One of the research units at MSBM, the Centre of Excellence for IT-enabled Innovation, led by Maurice McNaughton, has been actively engaged in action research on the emergence and application of open ICT Ecosystems in the Caribbean, in particular open source software, open data and mobile innovation ecosystems. All of these ‘open systems’ share some common characteristics with the Open Science narrative, and generally appear to offer new development opportunities and mechanisms for the SIDS of the Caribbean that have traditionally been disadvantaged by scale inefficiencies and small disconnected markets.

On the technology side, we are currently exploring the use of semantic web and linked open data concepts, standards and technologies, which will be a key enabler of the principles of open data/open knowledge that underpin this project. We currently have one of our graduate students evaluating Apache Jena as a free and open source framework for building semantic web and linked data applications. We are working towards the development of the initial prototype of an online interactive vocabulary based on the Disaster Recovery Planning ontology that will be demonstrated at the upcoming CDEMA conference.

The lesson we have learnt so far is the importance of the establishment and development of relationships with the key entities and stakeholders of the domain, without which the project would have limited relevance and impact. We have been fortunate that those we have contacted so far have been very willing to work with us and share information, largely because we have been able to demonstrate the relevance and mutual benefits that our work provides to them. However, we do recognize that, thus far, these relationships have evolved in a rather informal way and are based largely on individuals and therefore if these individuals are no longer around new relationships may need to be established. The idea of how best to develop sustainable institutional relationships to maintain the collaborative nature of projects of this kind will require further thought and exploration. Any ideas or best practice examples of how to achieve this in a sustained way are welcome in the comments section below!

References

[1] http://www.oas.org/pgdm/document/BITC/papers/gibbs/gibbs_02.htm

[2] http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=2447

[3] http://repeatingislands.com/2015/01/14/univ-of-west-indies-caribbean-countries-should-brace-for-eventual-massive-earthquake/

[4] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/04/dominica-asks-for-aid-tropical-storm-erika-damage

[5] http://time.com/3662225/haiti-earthquake-five-year-after/

[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243540/Haiti-earthquake-pictures-Shell-shocked-survivors-roam-streets-scavenging-scraps.html

[7] http://www.odpem.org.jm/DisastersDoHappen/NationalDisasterPlans/tabid/57/Default.aspx (National Damage Assessment Plan)

[8] Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5-6), 907-928

Open Science and Development: The Importance of Cross-Disciplinary Learning

2015-10-05T13:02:40Z

This post is Part 1 of a blog series entitled “Intersections of Science and Development.” The series will look at the various nuances of development, as they relate to the emerging field of open science, and will attempt to draw out important learnings from both fields. If you are interested in writing a guest blog for this series, please email info@ocsdnet.org.

By: Becky Hillyer & Angela Okune, OCSDNet Coordination Team

Summary:

• It is important for Open Science to recognise the ‘human’ and ethical dimensions of an open and collaborative approach to research, and much can be learned from the field of development in this regard.

•On the other hand, literature around participation, collaboration and transparency within the field of development is often short-sighted in its methodology, such that final research results are often published in closed journal articles.

• OCSDNet projects seek to look at the intersection of science and development and are composed of interdisciplinary teams, often using participatory research methods, working to make their own research processes as open and accessible as possible – from data collection to final publication.

Open Science and Development: The Importance of Cross-Disciplinary Learning

Several weeks ago, OCSDNet project teams met virtually for a large-group discussion about the network’s upcoming manifesto project, which will seek to clearly articulate the shared principles and beliefs guiding the work of the network (more to come about this manifesto project and how you can get involved in a later post!). To kick off the discussion, members were asked to examine the image below, and to provide a reaction to it: Did they feel that the diagram was complete? Were there any aspects that were missing?

The image, created by ‘Facilitate Open Science Training for European Research (FOSTER), provides a taxonomy of the key elements of “open science.” It encompasses popular themes such as “Open Access,” “Open Data,” etc. – and the consequent activities and infrastructure required to put these larger concepts into practice.

However, it was quite clear to most members of OCSDNet that two very important factors are missing from this diagram: the motivations and actors that are guiding the activities, themes and policies required for catalysing ‘open science’ that is truly open. Indeed, without these elements at its core, open science has little to offer the field of development, in terms of its capacity to challenge existing power structures.

Moving Beyond Extractive Science and Development

Decades of experience and reflection have taught us that both science and development can be extractive to those who are not in positions of power and privilege. Indeed, a failure to account for the embedded power relations of research in any field can lead to highly unethical practice which goes against many principles of both development and science.

Since the 1960’s, Robert Chambers and others have popularised notions of “Participatory Action Research” (PAR) and alternative forms of participatory research methods that recognise the importance of local knowledge while striving to minimize power relations between privileged researchers and vulnerable local people. In more recent decades, concepts such as ‘citizenship’ and ‘rights-based approaches’ to research have become popularized as the ‘ethical’ way to conduct development research and programming. As part of this discourse, working in collaboration with local people and in an open and transparent way have become well understood principles amongst development thinkers and actors.

Similar to the emergence of Participatory Action Research for more ethical and effective development work, open science has recently emerged as a concept that challenges some of the extractive elements of more traditional scientific practice. Proponents of the concept hail open science as an important stepping stone towards making the field of science more accessible to actors (including many in the developing world) who have previously been excluded from producing and accessing most forms of scientific knowledge.

Indeed, a workshop on “Science in the Developing World,” recently held at the Balsillie School of International Affairs at the University of Waterloo concluded that “collaborative and participatory research practices are crucial” for science and development moving forward. Workshop participants highlighted the importance of encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social scientists, as well as recognizing the benefits of including local expertise in science research.

As we know from the development literature, involving those with local knowledge to support research efforts is not a new concept. Nonetheless, open science conferences and policy circles continue to stress the need to include local people into decision-making roles as if it were a new and innovative form of thinking. And while these collaborative forms of working are not without their fair share of challenges (such as deciding the depth of involvement, logistics/coordination, resource investment, and an onslaught of new power relations.), these considerations cannot be merely left out when claiming to undertake “open science.”

The Importance of Cross-Disciplinary Learning

The development literature around participatory research methods, ethics, power relations and the importance of cross-cultural collaboration is extensive (see Sherry Arnstein’s famous “Ladder of Participation,” Heron and Reasons’ ‘The Practice of Co-operative Inquiry’ and John Gaventa’s ‘Finding the Space for Change: A Power Analysis’, as examples). Now, with the emergence of concepts such as ‘citizen science’ and ‘open science,’ the similarities between the fields of science and development are becoming ever more pronounced. However, as open science becomes increasingly popular, it is imperative for researchers and practitioners in the field to consider and integrate lessons learned from other disciplines around collaboration, power and transparency into their own work and reflections on science. For this to happen, greater interdisciplinary work between researchers of different fields should be supported.

On the other hand, development researchers can also stand to learn a thing or two from the emerging field of open science. For instance, although participatory development stresses openness and inclusion during the process of data collection and (perhaps) analysis, more often than not, the final results of the research continue to be published in closed-access journals, which many colleagues and research participants (ie: anyone without direct association with wealthy institutions) are unable to access. This article, for example, criticizes the World Bank’s participatory consultation of 20,000 ‘poor people’ and the associated international structures of knowledge production;’ but is published in a closed journal that will cost most people $40 USD to access. Similarly, this article makes reference to the continuing ‘tyranny of participation,’ in relation to the consultation of indigenous groups during the lead-up to the post-2015 agenda, but is once again published in an inaccessible journal space. The field of open science, on the other hand, stresses the importance of making the entire research process open and accessible – from data collection through to review and publication.

For these reasons among others, the Open and Collaborative Science for Development Network is comprised of project teams of highly diverse skill sets, languages and fields of expertise – including individuals from natural science backgrounds, social scientists, makers, artists, educationalists, and law practitioners. It is our belief that this diversity will offer a unique reflection on each discipline’s relevant literature and history, enabling greater sharing of lessons to the benefit of each project as well as the fields of open science and development more generally.

Facing social demands in non-hegemonic countries: from reflection to practice

2015-10-18T17:44:04Z

By Hugo Ferpozzi of CONICET

Versión en español del blog está disponible aquí.

The workshop entitled, “Open Science Collaborations Facing Social Demands in Non-Hegemonic Countries” took place in Buenos Aires between July 24 and July 26, 2015. The event was proposed as an opportunity to gather together OCSDNet project participants, advisors, consultants and other colleagues interested in the intersections between open science and social needs.

The workshop aimed not to be limited to analysis, deconstruction and critique, but also to devising principles for participation and practice, so as to discuss what open science means, the challenges it faces, and, most importantly, what can we do about it through our scholarly practice.

Open science is a vast, polysemic term, and it is in its wide scope, precisely, that we believe lie opportunities for collaboration, practice, and engagement with social demands. In this sense, the workshop featured the participation of OCSDNet researchers and advisors,[1] as well as other participants who are concerned with issues related to open knowledge and open science collaboration.[2]

Some reflections from the workshop:

Science as commons and commons as science. To become a common good, proposed Antonio Lafuente, knowledge must not be just for everyone but by everyone. Neither should science be “public but open”, or simply “open to citizens’ demands and evaluation”.[3] Science does not become commons by being more functional, open, or active. It may become commons, however, when its practices are entirely implemented in contrasted, collective, and recursive ways. Lafuente’s argument is inspired in Elinor Ostrom’s claims about the commons: these are not just things but also ways in which those things are managed.[4] Open science and open knowledge do not succeed in becoming public (as opposite to becoming private); on the contrary, the submission of the commons to the public sphere, as it has been traditionally conceived, might be a sign of the failure to support collective management practices for knowledge and science.

Raising a critique demands proposing an alternative. As obvious as it may seem, this principle is not always put into practice: what kind of journals, evaluation methods, and institutional practices are supporting – directly or indirectly – through our scholarly practice? In this sense, Dominique Babini not only collaborates with us in the Open Repository for STS Literature, but has also given very constructive advice on how to deal with, for example, meta-data for disseminating draft or publications that have not been yet published.
We are all equal (but some are more equal than the others). The production and uses of scientific knowledge we participate in can often take place among networks with clear asymmetries of power and resources. That includes open science as well. Intellectual property and scientific publishing is just one example. “Global” discursive and institutional devices can be dangerously insensitive to the needs and constraints of local contexts. There are “extractive” views on open science collaborations that miss (or disregard) the specificity and uniqueness of collective knowledge management practices outside the scientific mainstream. Authors, practitioners, researchers (and everyone else involved) should be encouraged to consciously pursue open sharing practices that meet democratization and collective participation goals in their contexts, not deterred from them by one-sided (and one-minded) ambiguous knowledge sharing regulations and intellectual property protection.

We are looking forward to holding the next annual workshop, in which we hope to extend this debate to the stakeholders implicated in our project: scholars, policy makers, and NGO representatives in the fields of territorial governance and tropical disease research. At the present stage, this extended collaboration has started through conversations with University of La Plata’s research team lead by Mariana Sanmartino, who is working on dissemination (or ‘mediation’ between experts and affected people) of existent knowledge of Chagas disease called Speaking of Chagas (in Spanish: ¿De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de Chagas?).

OCSDNetwork 2015 Progress Update

2015-09-27T07:59:41Z

This blog post is a summary of a progress report covering the period from November 2014 to May 2015 and submitted to the funder in June 2015. The full funder progress report can be found here. The next progress report will be made publically available in early 2016.

—

The Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet) officially launched on October 15, 2014 at the iHub, Nairobi’s innovation space for the technology community. OCSDNet has since then awarded 12 sub-project grants representing 26 countries in the Global South (3 proposed projects from Sub-Saharan Africa, 1 from the Middle East, 1 from the Caribbean, 4 from Latin America, and 3 from South, East and Central Asia). The projects all largely began activities in March 2015. Details of each project and the full proposals are available on the OCSDNet website: http://ocsdnet.org/projects/.

The sub-projects allow us to begin gathering observations on whether, and if so, the conditions under which open approaches to research and collaboration could lead to various development outcomes in the Global South. The selection of case studies was guided by a hybrid framework derived from the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (developed by Elinor Ostrom and colleagues) with integrated theories and models from related areas of openness studies, including Open Source, Open Access, Open Educational Resources, Open Data and Open Innovation. This integrated framework serves as our “Theory of Change” (ToC) that guides the continual design and development of the network. The ToC also informs an on-going development of an evaluation framework for the sub-projects, to assess the overall effectiveness of the network. More information on our TOC available here.

Network Objectives and Emerging Results

The specific objectives of OCSDNet are to:

Support new projects and activities so as to generate evidence on whether, and if so, under what conditions open approaches to science can enable research that contributes to development goals in the Global South.
Build a community of open science practitioners and leaders in different contexts, by nurturing an interactive research network.
Identify the structural, technical, policy and cultural barriers for individuals and organizations to participate in OCS and determine how these barriers could be addressed.
Contribute to the building of a new and vibrant area of study (OCS), producing knowledge to inform policy and practice, and a community of researchers who identify themselves as working on OCS.

Towards Objective 1: “Support new projects and activities so as to generate evidence on whether, and if so, under what conditions open approaches to science can enable research that contributes to development goals in the Global South.”

After receiving 91 concept note applications from across the Global South, and selecting 14 shortlisted projects for the full proposal development workshop held in mid-October 2014, we have awarded 12 sub-grantee projects. The project sub-grant agreement documents were largely signed in February 2015 and most project activities commenced in March 2015. As the coordinators, we have also been helping to link some of the projects with relevant initiatives and opportunities such as EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries) and Center for Open Science.

In designing and implementing M&E approaches for the network, the Coordination Team has sought to use a methodology called ‘outcome harvesting,’ which focuses on the continuous collection of data in different forms, throughout a project’s life cycle. This is different to most forms of project evaluation, which tend to focus on monitoring pre-established indicators at set intervals – such as quarterly or annual cycles, with most evaluation being performed at the project’s completion.

Towards Objective 2: “Build a community of open science practitioners and leaders in different contexts, by nurturing an interactive research network.”

The OCSDNet network website gathers greater traction and has begun being used for dissemination of content from subgrantee projects. In the following months, the OCSDNet Team will continue to encourage widespread participation by organizing e-conferences to stimulate various discussions around relevant issues arising from the projects. The OCSDNet social media platforms continue to gain traction with over 390 followers on Twitter and 353 Likes on Facebook (statistics from June 2015).

The network has begun to organically facilitate linkages across the different projects. Some of these emerging linkages include:

• Several individuals from different projects and areas of the world have been corresponding in regards to the possibility of a joint Side Event at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at COP21 in December 2015.

• A workshop hosted by CONICET to be held in June will include two other OCSDNet project representatives based in Latin America: CENIT/STEPS and IBICT.

• A “Maker” workshop to be run by HONF (in South-East Asia) in September 2015 will include OCSDNet project representatives from Camp Alatoo/UCA, based in Kyrgyzstan.

One of the sub-grantees has explicitly said,

“Belonging to a network helps to explain the whole philosophy and makes our project more interesting for people. It was good to have a few exchanges in the region, including a conversation on Skype with Mariano (CENIT/STEPS), and we have reused a part of their flyer for our presentation because it gives, in our opinion, a clear illustration of what is ciencia abierta (open science, in Spanish).”

Open Science pamphlet, produced by CENIT/STEPS

At the same time, other members of the network stressed that the collaboration was very important for demonstrating the legitimacy of their research as well as the importance of OCS as an emerging field of study, “Having this reputable network helps to get the buy-in/support from important stakeholders.” Others commented that the ‘openness’ of being able to see all teams’ monthly reports, “It is nice to see the reports written by the other OCSDNet teams, so that we can somehow take part in what everyone is working on/struggling with.”

Towards Objective 3: “Identify the structural, technical, policy and cultural barriers for individuals and organizations to participate in OCS and determine how these barriers could be addressed.”

From monthly progress reports received from the sub-grantees, we have been able to extract a set of arising risks, some of which seem to be shared among a variety of the projects. A few of the projects are starting to flag a number of issues that are not fully understood in the context of Open and Collaborative Science – including how the sector interacts with themes of gender, disability and ethics, to name a few. These issues and the ones identified below all require further articulation and analysis, as more findings and reflection emerge from the sub-projects:

• Resistance to openness by academic and policy environment / Challenging North-South knowledge divides

• Challenge of adapting openness discourse to a larger audience for real democratisation of knowledge

• Communicating and translating complicated OS concepts into local languages/realities:

• Challenge of working in the field of “open” science in a world of closed knowledge

• Working ‘openly’ and ‘collaboratively’ can be time-consuming and resource intensive

We have also noted a risk of duplication of data repositories. OCSDNet is working together with the Confederation of Open Access Repositories and The Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO) to put together a proposal on using existing repository networks around the world to serve as the platform for open research and dissemination.

Towards Objective 4: “Contribute to the building of a new and vibrant area of study (OCS), producing knowledge to inform policy and practice, and a community of researchers who identify themselves as working on OCS for development.”

One of the key learnings that has emerged is the importance of considering openness as a ‘mindset’ or an attitude. ‘Openness’ cannot merely be confined to just one area of work or life, but is instead a concept that is complex and multi-layered, an emerging philosophy that seeks to create a new system of research and dissemination based on transparency and collaboration. As one of the sub-grantees neatly describes:

“We feel sometimes all this openness discourse is mostly about software and online networks. But, what we really need to do here in the field is to work on “attitudes”. It takes time. Been reflecting a lot about the importance of promoting the right mindset, a change of attitude toward science (more openness in the community to the elites and scientists, and more openness in the academia to sharing and co-creating with the community). And how a lot of this comes from our 10+ years of having been educated in a formal schooling system. So a more open education in all senses is key. Openness is really a mindset.”

Next Steps:

In terms of next steps for the network, one outcome of the ICTD2015 conference was a clear need for an OCS manifesto. During discussions with project teams in attendance, several OCSDNet members indicated challenges in explaining the OCS concept in everyday language(s) to their research participants and communities. The creation of a manifesto for the network, generated through collaborative e-debate and joint writing sessions with sub-grantees, would help to lay out the explicit vision for the network, as well as further articulating and refining our shared understanding of just what is open and collaborative science. Once we have a draft outline of the manifesto created, we will put out a call to the wider Open Science community for debate and endorsement.

More details on the network’s progress are available in the full report available for download here.

We welcome your feedback and questions in the comments section below.