Group items tagged

Founding editor and previous co-editor of the open access journal Feminist Media Studies provides an in-depth account into her experiences engaging with feminist, open access processes. Lisa McLuaghlin spends a great deal of time discussing the implications of hierarchies in (academic) publishing and the political implications of editorial boards. Also engaged throughout the article is a conversation about diversity within academic publishing. She emphasizes how Feminist Media Studies does not have a very diverse authorship despite the journal's intention and specific policies and editorial policies that are intended to encourage non-English speakers to publish in the English journal. This reflection on feminism and open access demonstrates what these fields have accomplished, while also indicating how far we still have to go. Overall, the article provided many insights from someone on-the-ground in regards to feminist, open access initiatives.

Open access publishing in Feminist/Gender studies should reflect objectivism and diversity; therefore a diverse editorial board should be elected to recruit and select journal content that suits the target profile. It seems as if the editorial management of this journal is run more along business ethics than the principles of the journal.

I would say that ethics should nearly always come ahead of journal principles.

"Larger than the Open Access warz, I feel that I have a moral responsibility to increase the access to science careers for women and minorities. I can't hold the door open for those folks unless I am standing on the other side of it. That means getting tenure and if someone tells me that I can get closer to those goals by forgoing Open Access for a round or two, I'm going to do it."

Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

lubajong and taylor_cole thank you for your comments. From my part I will add a critical evaluation of this resource as well. The talk pages of Wikipedia provide a rich source for researchers to study communication patterns. On Wikipedia talk pages they have found signals for status differences between groups of participants, notably between admins and ordinary contributors. Those findings support in general the theories of the researchers about status differences and communication style differences between managers and employees in firms. They have also found differences in communication style bases on gender, which also support their general theories about gender (which is a social construct). What I - as a Wikipedian insider - finds missing in the article is the selection bias. Wikipedia admins aren't appointed by Jimmy Wales or some other body. Admins are community selected. The exact process differs per language version. On the English Wikipedia admin selection is by a community consensus process. Future admins are selected who show the preferred communication style of admins by other contributors including existing admins. For me, the patterns in communication style do not explain the gender gap on Wikipedia. There is a gender gap in many language versions of Wikipedia, but not in all. The Armenian language version of Wikipedia is a notable exception, showing a gender balance in the conbtributor base. An explanation of that exemption requires further research. What taylor_cole notes about neutrality and bias is a valid point. People volunteer to write for Wikipedia, and volunteer in topic choice. My guess is that in general people will opt to write about something they like, care about, know about. A lack of diversity in contributors will naturally reflect in lack of diversity of topics. For example nerdy males will write about things male nerds like. In general females tend to be interested in other topics than nerdy males. A lack of topics covered in Wikipe

Levels of participation influences emotional expression and phrasing? has the function of sex and status of the taxpayer. 4 strands to study and find a result! Interesting!

How valuable are MOOCs in certain learning demographics?

GAPMIL is an international cooperation to ensure that all citizens have access to media and information competencies. This pioneering initiative was launched during the Global Forum for Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy (MIL) which took place from 26 to 28 June 2013.The forum was held under the theme "Promoting Media and Information Literacy as a Means to Cultural Diversity".

"The Macaulay Library is the world's largest and oldest scientific archive of biodiversity audio and video recordings. Our mission is to collect and preserve recordings of each species' behavior and natural history, to facilitate the ability of others to collect and preserve such recordings, and to actively promote the use of these recordings for diverse purposes spanning scientific research, education, conservation, and the arts." A great example of what citizen science can build!

Terasem Movement, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit charity endowed for the purpose of educating the public on the practicality and necessity of greatly extending human life, consistent with diversity and unity, via geoethical nanotechnology and personal cyberconsciousness. Terasem accomplishes its objectives by convening publicly accessible symposia, publishing explanatory analyses, conducting demonstration projects, issuing grants and encouraging public belief in a positive technologically-based future.

"The development of the ISP as a conceptual framework is the result of more than two decades of empirical research that began with a qualitative study of secondary school students and the emergence of an initial model, that was verified and refined through quantitative and longitudinal methods of diverse library users and further developed in case studies of people in the workplace." Very interesting to compare this model developed by Kuhlthau with Siemen's model of Connectivism.

1. Talk things through Start a discussion on any topic, and bring in the right people. Share diverse perspectives and develop ideas together. 2. Build agreement Anyone can propose a course of action. People can agree, abstain, disagree, or block - so you can see how everyone feels, and why.

This source makes many of the points made in the video and readings for this week; Specifically, that scholars have a duty to use open source culture as "creation and curation of human knowledge, scholarship is an open-source endeavor. The end product - human knowledge - is not a fixed product, it is distributed, has diverse manifestations, and belongs to no individual or entity." He extends this notion to pedagogy suggesting "the best pedagogy take the best of what already exists and make it better, at least better for the task at hand."

The competencies discussed by Dr. Jenkins in the Module 3 video, for those who are interested, are: "Play - the capacity to experiment with your surroundings as a form of problem-solving Performance - the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery Simulation - the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real world processes Appropriation - the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content Multitasking - the ability to scan one's environment and shift focus as needed to salient details. Distributed Cognition - the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities Collective Intelligence - the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal Judgment - the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources Transmedia Navigation - the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities Networking - the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information Negotiation - the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms."

Although IASCP is devoted to the study of institutions for the management of environmental resources (such as forests, oceans and land) held or used collectively by communities, its WWW site provides a wealth of information for scholars of common pool resources in diverse disciplines. It also seeks to allow an exchange of scholarship between members, researchers, students and other CPR practitioners. Publishes quarterly journal called Common Property Resource Digest. WWW site includes: (a) Searchable CPR bibliographies (see entry for Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis) (b) abstracts of papers from past IASCP conferences (c) links to online articles, bibliographies and information sources on common pool resources (d) information on IASCP conferences and membership.

Publicado el 7/5/2012 This is a brief overview of several Open Peer Review Models, including ETAI, Nature, ACP, PLoS One and EJCBS. It is recorded based on a Prezi Presentation first developed for Open Access Week 2011 at UBC.

I found this presentation, in particular the visual representations, to be very useful in understanding just how diverse open peer review models can be. Several things stuck out to me throughout the presentation. First, I was surprised that many of the open peer review models either maintained anonymity of the reviewers or self-identification was optional. For example, PLOSone and the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journals did not require self-identification. This raises a tension for me in that it does enable more people to participate in the publishing/review process, but it still inherently indicates context does not matter, which is something I disagree with. That is, if, for example, a paper is on student-faculty partnerships or feminism, it seems to me that crucial insights pertain to the particularities of the people reviewing an article. The other aspect that stuck out to me was how crucial it is for a journal to be intentional about implementing, integrating, and valuing an open peer review process. The Nature experiment is a good example of this. While I am sure they spent a great deal of time figuring out how to construct and enable an open peer review process, it was not necessarily emphasized as important by the journal nor well integrated into people's current practice. In contrast, the ETAI did this by permanently archiving the peer comments rather than deleting them unannounced, and editors also sent notifications to people that articles were ready rather than assuming people would seek out articles themselves.

This is an international, peer- reviewed journal that aims to investigate information literacy in all its forms to address the interests of diverse Information Literacy communities of practice. This journal provides open access!! to its publications, and it is possible to download them as well. You can find here articles, projects, book reviews, conference corner, and archive. The journal is published twice a year. Great resource with such a wide scope!

This does look good -- thanks for sharing it.

With these resources, you can create or participate in collaborative efforts to develop tools and methods for online education.

Many Open Education Resources (OER) have been introduced by governments, universities, and individuals within the past few years. OERs provide teaching and learning materials that are freely available and offered online for anyone to use. Whether you're an instructor, student, or self-learner, you have access to full courses, modules, syllabi, lectures, assignments, quizzes, activities, games, simulations, and tools to create these components.

Thanks. An extensive list of resources. It may have been easier to use the list if it wasn't categorised only alphabetically but also further grouped into categories. It's still a valuable collection.

Kat Smith and Richard Freeman argue it's time to start bringing together the diverse and innovative thinking around the complex relationships between science, knowledge and policy.

Although the main purpose of this article is to promote a book series that will explore the disconnect between evidence-based knowledge and public policy, a couple excerpts drive home the importance of open access in creating a more equitable world, a key theme in our course: "'Who gets what, when, how', in Lasswell's phrase, depends very much on who knows what, when and how." "To be knowledgeable is to be powerful."

OASIS aims to provide an authoritative 'sourcebook' on Open Access, covering the concept, principles, advantages, approaches and means to achieving it. The site highlights developments and initiatives from around the world, with links to diverse additional resources and case studies. As such, it is a community-building as much as a resource-building exercise. Users are encouraged to share and download the resources provided, and to modify and customize them for local use. Open Access is evolving, and OASIS invites the growing world-wide community to take part in this exciting global movement.

This is my favorite article and it shows that old fashion publisher represent a barrier for knowledge flow, and they were misusing it. "Introduction:There is concern within democratic societies that a growing number of individuals are disconnecting from their role as citizens (Merritt and McCombs 2004: 47, Turner, G., 2005: 135, Dyrenfurth, N., 2005). Much of the blame for this disengagement has fallen upon the gatekeeping practices of journalism (Schechter, D., 2005: 70). These practices are often held to be counterproductive to journalism's primary purpose, which is to create an inclusive and diverse space for conversation between members of society about issues affecting their lives. Gatekeeping practices have the capacity to create gaps and silences, giving voice only to those already holding power. They give media corporations, politicians and large lobby groups the capacity to set the agenda on their terms and in their own best interests (Schechter, D., 2005: 70). "