August 2020 - Listserv For Scientists

Revisiting Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition...

by A public forum for scientists.

Hi Everyone - A few years ago, this paper on incentives in academia was circulating. In brief, the authors take a critical view of incentives and hypercompetition to describe how these can actually reduce scientific progress and increase unethical actions. That article got a bit of attention because it described them as "perverse incentives" (titled "Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition"). Here is a blog that provided a summary and some additional insights (https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-wors…) and a follow-up to that blog because it struck a chord (https://svpow.com/2017/03/22/why-do-we-manage-academia-so-badly/) When looking more into this topic, I also found another article (attached) that similarly covered this issue but did so over a decade ago ("The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships"). Given the continuing focus on metrics/incentives, it is worth a skim (I've cut-and-pasted a telling table below). On the one hand, these are helpful in that they map out the problem space of the challenges associated with this issue. On the other hand, they don't really offer any concrete solutions. Further, they note that it is difficult to envision any solutions. There are some high level abstractions like emphasizing normative ethical behavior. Although that is always helpful, it does not seem to get at the core of a broader system where perverse incentives are still emphasized. In sum, although we can find articles describing these kinds of problems, I have yet to see any that offer concrete solutions. My question to the list is whether anyone knows if any universities and/or funding institutions have looked into this to try different incentives, or, even better, study implementations of different incentives? Best, Steve Fiore ------- Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D. Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/) University of Central Florida sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461. Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science. Edwards, M.A., & Siddhartha, R. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61. Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output. [cid:aed294d4-eaa9-45df-8496-1106492ce7dd]

2 years, 4 months

1
1
0 0

Why transdisciplinary research needs scaffolding

by A public forum for scientists.

Why transdisciplinary research needs scaffolding is discussed by Rod Lawrence in his blog post at https://i2insights.org/2020/09/01/scaffolding-transdisciplinary-contributio…. Includes: to identify where facilitation is needed, to select appropriate methods & tools, to build bridges between people with different perceptions & values, to support collective thinking & co-action of a diverse group of participants and to promote personal empowerment, mobilize creativity & create common-ground. =================================================== Professor Gabriele Bammer National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Research School of Population Health ANU College of Health and Medicine The Australian National University 62 Mills Road Acton ACT 2601 +61 2 6125 0716 Gabriele.Bammer(a)anu.edu.au<mailto:Gabriele.Bammer@anu.edu.au> @GabrieleBammer http://i2s.anu.edu.au<http://www.anu.edu.au/iisn> http://I2Insights.org CRICOS Provider # 00120C ===================================================

2 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Message: Revisiting Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition...

by A public forum for scientists.

Great topic. At the risk of self-promotion I am pointing to recent piece on incentives I posted in my blog https://www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor/2020/06/11/more-better-science/ so far no one has taken us up on our recommendations. The Open Research Funders Group is also part of a NASEM roundtable that is looking at how to align academic incentives and reward structures with the practices of open scholarship. In reality – this re-alignment is about culture and what it is that is valued – https://www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/projectview.aspx?key=51293#:~:text=In… Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D. President, James S. McDonnell Foundation Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jsmf.org_clothing-2…> www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor SMF blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.scientificphilanthr…> www.scientificphilanthropy.com From: A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:29 AM To: scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org Cc: Fiore, Steve <sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu>; ADVANCE Program <advanceprogram(a)umass.edu> Subject: Message: Re: Message: Revisiting Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition... Hi Steve, Thanks for this! One approach to 'doing something' that we've been working on is providing incentives for collaboration, particularly because academic competition in the narrow sense often ignores the disadvantages that scientists from marginalized identities face--and that the playing field is very uneven. At UMass we've been drawing on work of folks like you and others on this list who have studied collaboration and team science for our NSF ADVANCE -IT grant (Collaboration and Equity). We propose that providing more Resources, Relationships, and Recognition (the '3 Rs') for collaboration in an equitable way will advance women faculty, including BIPOC women faculty. We are in the midst of this project and still learning, but based on our research so far have started to come up with some 'tools' for best practices in creating equitable and inclusive faculty communities <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…> , equitable research collaborations <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…> , and ways of recognizing that the effects of Covid-19 are having disparate impacts <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…> on faculty careers. These are 'living' documents that we continue to update, and welcome feedback. I am always interested to see the other links and practices as well as findings that are reported on this list, hope others find our links useful as well. Sincerely, Laurel Laurel Smith-Doerr, Professor of Sociology Director and PI of <https://www.umass.edu/advance/home> UMass Amherst NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation program Chair of the Science, Knowledge, and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003, USA On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:13 PM A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org <mailto:scientists@sciencelistserv.org> > wrote: Hi Everyone - A few years ago, this paper on incentives in academia was circulating. In brief, the authors take a critical view of incentives and hypercompetition to describe how these can actually reduce scientific progress and increase unethical actions. That article got a bit of attention because it described them as "perverse incentives" (titled "Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition"). Here is a blog that provided a summary and some additional insights (https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-wors…) and a follow-up to that blog because it struck a chord (https://svpow.com/2017/03/22/why-do-we-manage-academia-so-badly/) When looking more into this topic, I also found another article (attached) that similarly covered this issue but did so over a decade ago ("The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships"). Given the continuing focus on metrics/incentives, it is worth a skim (I've cut-and-pasted a telling table below). On the one hand, these are helpful in that they map out the problem space of the challenges associated with this issue. On the other hand, they don't really offer any concrete solutions. Further, they note that it is difficult to envision any solutions. There are some high level abstractions like emphasizing normative ethical behavior. Although that is always helpful, it does not seem to get at the core of a broader system where perverse incentives are still emphasized. In sum, although we can find articles describing these kinds of problems, I have yet to see any that offer concrete solutions. My question to the list is whether anyone knows if any universities and/or funding institutions have looked into this to try different incentives, or, even better, study implementations of different incentives? Best, Steve Fiore ------- Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D. Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/) University of Central Florida sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu <mailto:sfiore@ist.ucf.edu> Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461. Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science. Edwards, M.A., & Siddhartha, R. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61. Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output. _______________________________________________ Listserv For Scientists mailing list -- scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org <mailto:scientists@sciencelistserv.org> To unsubscribe send an email to scientists-leave(a)sciencelistserv.org <mailto:scientists-leave@sciencelistserv.org>

2 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Message: Revisiting Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition...

by A public forum for scientists.

Hi Steve, Thanks for this! One approach to 'doing something' that we've been working on is providing incentives for collaboration, particularly because academic competition in the narrow sense often ignores the disadvantages that scientists from marginalized identities face--and that the playing field is very uneven. At UMass we've been drawing on work of folks like you and others on this list who have studied collaboration and team science for our NSF ADVANCE -IT grant (Collaboration and Equity). We propose that providing more Resources, Relationships, and Recognition (the '3 Rs') for collaboration in an equitable way will advance women faculty, including BIPOC women faculty. We are in the midst of this project and still learning, but based on our research so far have started to come up with some 'tools' for best practices in creating equitable and inclusive faculty communities <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…>, equitable research collaborations <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…>, and ways of recognizing that the effects of Covid-19 are having disparate impacts <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…> on faculty careers. These are 'living' documents that we continue to update, and welcome feedback. I am always interested to see the other links and practices as well as findings that are reported on this list, hope others find our links useful as well. Sincerely, Laurel Laurel Smith-Doerr, Professor of Sociology Director and PI of UMass Amherst NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation program <https://www.umass.edu/advance/home> Chair of the Science, Knowledge, and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003, USA On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:13 PM A public forum for scientists. < scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> wrote: > Hi Everyone - A few years ago, this paper on incentives in academia was > circulating. In brief, the authors take a critical view of incentives and > hypercompetition to describe how these can actually reduce scientific > progress and increase unethical actions. > > That article got a bit of attention because it described them as "perverse > incentives" (titled "Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of > Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition"). Here is a blog that provided a > summary and some additional insights ( > https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-wors…) > and a follow-up to that blog because it struck a chord ( > https://svpow.com/2017/03/22/why-do-we-manage-academia-so-badly/) When > looking more into this topic, I also found another article (attached) that > similarly covered this issue but did so over a decade ago ("The Perverse > Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships"). > > Given the continuing focus on metrics/incentives, it is worth a skim (I've > cut-and-pasted a telling table below). On the one hand, these are helpful > in that they map out the problem space of the challenges associated with > this issue. On the other hand, they don't really offer any concrete > solutions. Further, they note that it is difficult to envision any > solutions. There are some high level abstractions like emphasizing > normative ethical behavior. Although that is always helpful, it does not > seem to get at the core of a broader system where perverse incentives are > still emphasized. > > In sum, although we can find articles describing these kinds of problems, > I have yet to see any that offer concrete solutions. My question to the > list is whether anyone knows if any universities and/or funding > institutions have looked into this to try different incentives, or, even > better, study implementations of different incentives? > > Best, > Steve Fiore > > ------- > Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D. > Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy > Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & > Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/) > University of Central Florida > sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu > > > *Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). > The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. > Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461.* > Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among > other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. > Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom > considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career > scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition > in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to > strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of > information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work, > interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and > careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, > such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of > science. > > > *Edwards, M.A., & Siddhartha, R. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st > Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse > Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), > 51-61. * > Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists > have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research > funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a > changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased > discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a > hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, > CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding > from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased > funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a > critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is > possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently > corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating > consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better > support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical > outcomes, while de-emphasizing output. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Listserv For Scientists mailing list -- scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org > To unsubscribe send an email to scientists-leave(a)sciencelistserv.org >

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Revisiting Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition...

by A public forum for scientists.

I suspect Table 1 is seriously wrong. My conjecture is that the "intended effects" actually occur in the main, while the so-called "actual effects" are downside behaviors which also sometimes occur. The abstract point is that every policy has its downsides, so their existence does not render the policy a bad one. This is important, as a very common fallacy is to argue that relatively rare bad behaviors render a good policy bad. Bad aspects are a necessary condition for a policy to be a bad one, but they are not a sufficient condition. As a minimum the authors would have to show that the intended effects they list only seldom occur, which I think is highly unlIkely. David Wojick Issue analyst On Aug 29, 2020, at 5:12 PM, A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> wrote: Hi Everyone - A few years ago, this paper on incentives in academia was circulating. In brief, the authors take a critical view of incentives and hypercompetition to describe how these can actually reduce scientific progress and increase unethical actions. That article got a bit of attention because it described them as "perverse incentives" (titled "Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition"). Here is a blog that provided a summary and some additional insights (https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-wors…) and a follow-up to that blog because it struck a chord (https://svpow.com/2017/03/22/why-do-we-manage-academia-so-badly/) When looking more into this topic, I also found another article (attached) that similarly covered this issue but did so over a decade ago ("The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships"). Given the continuing focus on metrics/incentives, it is worth a skim (I've cut-and-pasted a telling table below). On the one hand, these are helpful in that they map out the problem space of the challenges associated with this issue. On the other hand, they don't really offer any concrete solutions. Further, they note that it is difficult to envision any solutions. There are some high level abstractions like emphasizing normative ethical behavior. Although that is always helpful, it does not seem to get at the core of a broader system where perverse incentives are still emphasized. In sum, although we can find articles describing these kinds of problems, I have yet to see any that offer concrete solutions. My question to the list is whether anyone knows if any universities and/or funding institutions have looked into this to try different incentives, or, even better, study implementations of different incentives? Best, Steve Fiore ------- Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D. Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/) University of Central Florida sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461. Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science. Edwards, M.A., & Siddhartha, R. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61. Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output. <Outlook-b3dno2ik.png> <The_Perverse_Effect_of_Competition_on_Scientists'_.pdf> <Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition.pdf> _______________________________________________ Listserv For Scientists mailing list -- scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org To unsubscribe send an email to scientists-leave(a)sciencelistserv.org

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Being Highly Prolific in Academic Science

by A public forum for scientists.

Being highly prolific in academic science: characteristics of individuals and their departments <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343835321_Being_highly_prolific_in…> *(Link)* M. F. Fox and I. Nikivincze /Higher Education/ (August 2020) The prolific (exceptionally high producers of scholarly publications) are strategic to the study of academic science. The highly prolific have been drivers of research activity and impact and are a window into the stratification that exists. For these reasons, we address key characteristics associated with being highly prolific. Doing this, we take a social-organizational approach and use distinctive survey data of both social characteristics of scientists and features of their departments, reported by US faculty in computer science, engineering, and sciences within eight US research universities. The findings point to a telling constellation of hierarchical advantages: rank, collaborative span, and favorable work climate. Notably, once we take rank into account, gender is not associated with being prolific. These findings have implications for understanding being prolific, systems of stratification, and practices and policies in higher education.

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Key ways research centres fulfil an interdisciplinary mission

by A public forum for scientists.

Key ways research centres fulfil an interdisciplinary mission are discussed by Paul Bolger in his blog post at https://i2insights.org/2020/08/25/interdisciplinary-research-institutes/. They include: enabling researchers to work with colleagues outside their disciplines, esp across natural - social sciences boundary; enabling opportunities not available in home departments to tackle challenges requiring interdisciplinarity; facilitating research, providing seed funding & fostering an open & visibly collaborative environment. What's your experience been? =================================================== Professor Gabriele Bammer National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Research School of Population Health ANU College of Health and Medicine The Australian National University 62 Mills Road Acton ACT 2601 +61 2 6125 0716 Gabriele.Bammer(a)anu.edu.au<mailto:Gabriele.Bammer@anu.edu.au> @GabrieleBammer http://i2s.anu.edu.au<http://www.anu.edu.au/iisn> http://I2Insights.org CRICOS Provider # 00120C ===================================================

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Fwd: Registration Reminder for Data for Policy 2020

by A public forum for scientists.

Dear colleagues, I would like to inform you that the International Organisation Committee for the Data for Policy 2020 Conference is now inviting registration for the conference, which will take place virtually on September 15-17, 2020. There are many sessions and presentations that explore the implications of data policy for addressing societal challenges, including Special Tracks on "Harnessing Data and Science to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals" and "Data Governance for Innovation for Sustainable Smart Cities: Opportunities and Challenges in Public Policy and Institutional Design," in which I will be the chair. Please see the information below for further details. Thank you very much. Best regards, YARIME Masaru ********************************************************************************************************************************* YARIME Masaru, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Division of Public Policy (PPOL), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) Office: Room 4611 (Lift 31/32), PPOL, HKUST, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong Phone: +852-3469-2283; E-mail: yarime(a)ust.hk; Web: https://ppol.ust.hk/ppl/faculty/prof_masaru_yarime; http://yarime.net/ Honorary Associate Professor, Department of Science, Technology, Engineering & Public Policy, University College London Visiting Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public Policy, The University of Tokyo ********************************************************************************************************************************** ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Data for Policy 2020 <team(a)dataforpolicy.org> Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:05 PM Subject: Registration Reminder for Data for Policy 2020 To: <yarimemasa(a)gmail.com> Reminder to register to secure your place at the virtual Data for Policy 5th International Conference *Register now for the virtual Data for Policy 2020 5th International Conference 15 -17 September * Data for Policy 2020 5th International Conference 15-17th September 2020 | Online dataforpolicy.org | @dataforpolicy (https://twitter.com/dataforpolicy) Registration deadline extended: *Friday, 4th September 2020* Registration is closing soon for the Data for Policy 5th International Conference – book now to secure a place! http://dataforpolicy.org/registration/ Moving to an online format for the first time, this year’s conference continues the multi-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, global conversation on the theories, applications and implications of data science innovation in governance and the public sector. The conference provides an unmissable opportunity for networking as leading international scholars, policy makers, international institutions and private sector organisations from across the world are participating. Data for Policy 2020 truly is a one of a kind, unmissable event. *Featured participants include: * - *Jeffrey Schlagenhauf*, Deputy Secretary General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - *Sir Peter Gluckmann*, Former Chief Scientific Advisor, New Zealand - *Zuena Aziz*, Chief Co-ordinator for Sustainable Development Goals Affairs in the Prime Minister's Office, Bangladesh - *Samia Melhem*, Global Lead on Digital Capabilities, Digital Development Practice, World Bank - *Masaru Yarime*, Associate Professor, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong; UCL STEaPP, UK; and The University of Tokyo, Japan. - *Torbjörn  Fredriksson*, Head of ICT Analysis Section of the Division on Technology and Logistics, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - *Barbara Ubaldi, *Head of Reform of the Public Sector Division, OECD - *Stefaan Verhulst, *Co-Founder of the Government Laboratory (GovLab), New York University - *Christoph  Lütge, *Professor, Institute of Ethics and AI, ITM, Munich - *Helen Margetts*, Director of the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; The Alan Turing Institute - *C. Leigh Anderson*, Marc Lindenberg Professor for Humanitarian Action, International Development, and Global Citizenship, University of Washington *Keynote Speakers: * - *Professor David Hand*, Imperial College - *Professor Alessandro Vespignani*, Northeastern University - *Professor Yi Zeng*, Beijing Academy *Special sessions include: * - *"Data Governance in the Public Interest" *– comprising individual presentations and a Special Panel  *“Brave New Worlds? Ethics in Theory and Practice in Public Data Provision”* – organised by LSE and the Ada Lovelace Institute - *"Data, analytics and digital transformation in the private sector"* – a panel discussion organised by the UCL School of Management - *"‘For good measure’: The challenges of quantifying complex problems for policymaking"* – individual presentations and a special session on “The co-production of value from data by users and producers” – organised by Leiden University - *"Data Quality and Development Policy"* - individual presentations – organised by the University of Washington - *"Data Governance for Innovation for Sustainable Smart Cities: Opportunities and Challenges in Public Policy and Institutional Design"* – two sessions of individual presentations – organised by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology - *"Opportunities and Challenges for Data-Driven Research in Response to the COVID-19 Crisis"* – presentations and discussion - organised by the Alan Turing Institute - *"Data technologies and governance frameworks used for gathering, storing, managing, processing, analyzing and sharing data in the public administrations"* – individual presentations – organised by Lisbon Council and the GovLab, NYU *Organisations represented include: * Aapti Institute, India | Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation | Monash University, Australia | The Center for Economic Research and Teaching, Mexico | Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, UK | Hong Kong University of Science and Technology | Information and Training Outreach Centre for Africa | International Digital Accountability Council, USA | Qatar Computing Research Institute | Simon Fraser University, Canada | The Chinese University of Hong Kong | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem | United Nations University Institute in Macau | University College Dublin | Unicamp, Brazil | The Alan Turing Institute, UK | University of Oxford | University of the Aegean | University of Tokyo | World Wide Web Foundation, Indonesia | UK Statistics Authority | Ministry of Justice, UK | Sharif Governance Think Tank, Iran | Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Germany | Leiden University, Netherlands | Lapin Limited, Jersey | KIMEP University, Kazakhstan | National Institute for Economic and Social Research, UK | Ada Lovelace Institute, UK | Future of Privacy Forum, USA | University of Cambridge | European Commission | Office for National Statistics, UK | Quinten, France Data for Policy is committed to increasing diversity in its delegate community and we are therefore delighted to offer  *Data for Policy Ambassador  scholarships* to suitable candidates. We particularly welcome applications from groups which are currently underrepresented in our community, in particular those from developing nations, who will extend our geographic diversity. For further details, and how to apply, please visit our website: Data for Policy Ambassador scholarships <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009e…> - *deadline for application is 21st August* We are *recruiting event assistant and social media/blog volunteers* to assist with the running of the Conference. Please see our website for how to apply: Data for Policy Event Assistants <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009e…> and Data for Policy Social Media/Blog Assistants <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009e…> - *deadline for application is 21st August* *Reflections from past conferences:* “Data for Policy provides a unique opportunity to have a dialogue across many disciplinary boundaries, it’s a forum in which we can ask questions and move collectively towards solutions, we can share methods. I think it’s invaluable.” Professor Anthony Finkelstein, Chief Scientific Advisor for National Security to the UK Government – Data for Policy 2016 “This is the beginning of the dialogue that really needs to happen between policy makers and data scientists, so that they don’t find themselves warring with each other, but instead try to cooperate and move together to protect both the subjects of Big Data analysis and the ability to use this data to better inform policy and government.” Professor Jim Waldo, Chief Technology Officer, Harvard University – Data for Policy 2016 “It’s fantastic to come here and take the temperature of what’s going on in this field and hopefully out of this we can begin to look ahead and see where the new connections are going to be made between ideas and data science.” David Mair, Head of Unit at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission – Data for Policy 2016 “It is the first time I have had the opportunity to take part in this type of discussion – getting a sense of where political thinking is and where academic thinking is. Forums like this can provide the thought leadership that is necessary in this area.” John Sheridan, Head of Legislation Services, UK National Archives – Data for Policy 2015 *Supporting Institutions:* Data for Policy Team dataforpolicy.org <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009e…> | @dataforpolicy <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009e…> | cambridge.org/dap <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009e…> | @data_and_policy <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009e…> *Copyright © 2020 Data for Policy CIC, All rights reserved.* Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/profile?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009ec5c7…> or unsubscribe from this list <https://dataforpolicy.us9.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=0e48a758fb1eccb009e…> .

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Webinar: Tribute to L. Leydesdorff - and Special Issue of Quantitative Sci Studies

by A public forum for scientists.

Check on this with: Ismael Rafols i.rafols(a)cwts.leidenuniv.nl <mailto:i.rafols@cwts.leidenuniv.nl> Regards, -Mary On 8/21/2020 8:49 PM, A public forum for scientists. wrote: > Thank you - can you let us know what time zone this will be in for the > 1500-1800? Also, does it have to be run in Teams? When using Teams, > I have yet to have a webinar, teleconference, or conference that did > not have problems relative to Zoom. > > Best, > Steve > > -------- > > *Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.* > > Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy > > Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & > Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/) > > University of Central Florida > > sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> > *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2020 4:45 PM > *To:* scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> > *Subject:* Message: Webinar: Tribute to L. Leydesdorff - and Special > Issue of Quantitative Sci Studies > > > Webinar: Tribute to Loet Leydesdorff and Presentation of Special > Issue of Quantitative Science Studies > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Mon 7 Sep 2020 | 15:00 - 18:00 > Online > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > event20200907 > > The new journal /Quantitative Science Studies/ (QSS) has recently > released a new special issue (see below) exploring the relation of QSS > with neighboring fields, with contributions by renowned scholars > working at the boundaries of QSS. This webinar will explore some of > the issues raised in the special issue and will look ahead to the > future of the field. > > We also thought that this would be an ideal occasion to offer a > tribute to Loet Leydesdorff for his contributions to various fields of > science studies over almost 50 years, from his initial work on Dutch > /science shops/ in the 1970s to the /Triple Helix /dynamics, across a > myriad of strangely beautiful scientometric blossoms. We warmly invite > friends of STS, scientometrics and innovation studies and beyond to > participate in this celebration! > > > 15:00-16:30 Session 1. Special Issue on ‘Bridging the divide > between qualitative and quantitative science studies > <https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qss_e_00061>’ > > Join webinar here > <https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NjllMjg3NDEtZDY2YS00…> > > > Chair > > Ismael Rafols (Leiden University) > > > Welcome > > by Ludo Waltman (editor of QSS, Leiden University) > > > Introduction to the special issue > > Staša Milojević (Indiana University) > Loet Leysdesdorff (University of Amsterdam) > > > Panel debate: “Which directions might Quantitative Science > Studies take in the future?” > > Geoffrey C. Bowker (University of California, Irving) > James Evans (University of Chicago) > Koen Frenken (Utrecht University) > > > 17:00-18:00 Session 2. Tribute to Loet Leydesdorff > > Join webinar here > <https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NjllMjg3NDEtZDY2YS00…> > > > Chair > > Sally Wyatt (Maastricht University) > > Speakers > Cassidy R. Sugimoto (President of the International Society for > Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI) > Diana Lucio Arias (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá) > Lutz Bornmann (Max Planck Institute, Munich) > Caroline Wagner (Ohio State University) > Paul Wouters (Leiden University) > > > Table of contents of the Special Issue on ‘Bridging the divide > between qualitative and quantitative science studies’ > <https://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/qss/1/3> > > > Loet Leydesdorff, Ismael Rafols, & Staša Milojević, (Eds.), “Bridging > the divide between qualitative and quantitative science studies.” > <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00061> > > > Describing and questioning a divide > > * Geoffrey C. Bowker, “Numbers and no numbers in science studies.” > <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00054> > * Donghyun Kang > <https://www.mitpressjournals.org/author/Kang%2C+Donghyun> & > James Evans, “Against method: Exploding the boundary between > qualitative and quantitative studies of science.” > <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00056> > * Harriet Zuckerman, “Is ‘the time ripe’ for quantitative research > on misconduct in science?” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00065> > > Using numbers in decision making > > * Yong Zhao, Jian Du, & Yishan Wu, “Impact of J.D. Bernal’s > thoughts in the science of science upon China: Implications for > today’s quantitative studies of science.” > <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00064> > * Diana Hicks & Kimberly Isett, “Powerful numbers: Exemplary > quantitative studies of science that had policy impact.” > <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00060> > * Thomas Heinze & Arlette Jappe, “Quantitative science studies > should be framed with middle-range theories and concepts from > the social sciences.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00059> > > Perspectives and bridges > > * Christine L. Borgman, “Whose text, whose mining, and to whose > benefit.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00053> > * Mary Frank Fox, “Gender, science, and academic rank: Key issues > and approaches.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00057> > * Koen Frenken, “Geography of scientific knowledge: A proximity > approach.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00058> > > Future directions > > * Alberto Cambrosio, Jean-Philippe Cointet, & Alexandre H. Abdo, > “Beyond networks: Aligning qualitative and computational science > studies.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00055> > * Henry Small, “Past as prologue: Approaches to the study of > confirmation in science.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00063> > * Noortje Marres & Sarah de Rijcke, “From indicators to indicating > interdisciplinarity: A participatory mapping methodology for > research communities in-the-making.” > <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00062> > > We are grateful to the Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) - > Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology > <https://www.tib.eu/en/> for financial support to the special issue. > > 6 > > > _______________________________________________ > Listserv For Scientists mailing list -- scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org > To unsubscribe send an email to scientists-leave(a)sciencelistserv.org >

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Webinar: Tribute to L. Leydesdorff - and Special Issue of Quantitative Sci Studies

by A public forum for scientists.

Thank you - can you let us know what time zone this will be in for the 1500-1800? Also, does it have to be run in Teams? When using Teams, I have yet to have a webinar, teleconference, or conference that did not have problems relative to Zoom. Best, Steve -------- Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D. Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy <http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/staff.php?id=134> Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/) <http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/staff.php?id=134> <http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/staff.php?id=134> University of Central Florida sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu ________________________________ From: A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:45 PM To: scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> Subject: Message: Webinar: Tribute to L. Leydesdorff - and Special Issue of Quantitative Sci Studies Webinar: Tribute to Loet Leydesdorff and Presentation of Special Issue of Quantitative Science Studies ________________________________ Mon 7 Sep 2020 | 15:00 - 18:00 Online ________________________________ [event20200907] The new journal Quantitative Science Studies (QSS) has recently released a new special issue (see below) exploring the relation of QSS with neighboring fields, with contributions by renowned scholars working at the boundaries of QSS. This webinar will explore some of the issues raised in the special issue and will look ahead to the future of the field. We also thought that this would be an ideal occasion to offer a tribute to Loet Leydesdorff for his contributions to various fields of science studies over almost 50 years, from his initial work on Dutch science shops in the 1970s to the Triple Helix dynamics, across a myriad of strangely beautiful scientometric blossoms. We warmly invite friends of STS, scientometrics and innovation studies and beyond to participate in this celebration! 15:00-16:30 Session 1. Special Issue on ‘Bridging the divide between qualitative and quantitative science studies<https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qss_e_00061>’ Join webinar here<https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NjllMjg3NDEtZDY2YS00…> Chair Ismael Rafols (Leiden University) Welcome by Ludo Waltman (editor of QSS, Leiden University) Introduction to the special issue Staša Milojević (Indiana University) Loet Leysdesdorff (University of Amsterdam) Panel debate: “Which directions might Quantitative Science Studies take in the future?” Geoffrey C. Bowker (University of California, Irving) James Evans (University of Chicago) Koen Frenken (Utrecht University) 17:00-18:00 Session 2. Tribute to Loet Leydesdorff Join webinar here<https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NjllMjg3NDEtZDY2YS00…> Chair Sally Wyatt (Maastricht University) Speakers Cassidy R. Sugimoto (President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI) Diana Lucio Arias (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá) Lutz Bornmann (Max Planck Institute, Munich) Caroline Wagner (Ohio State University) Paul Wouters (Leiden University) Table of contents of the Special Issue on ‘Bridging the divide between qualitative and quantitative science studies’<https://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/qss/1/3> Loet Leydesdorff, Ismael Rafols, & Staša Milojević, (Eds.), “Bridging the divide between qualitative and quantitative science studies.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00061> Describing and questioning a divide * Geoffrey C. Bowker, “Numbers and no numbers in science studies.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00054> * Donghyun Kang<https://www.mitpressjournals.org/author/Kang%2C+Donghyun> & James Evans, “Against method: Exploding the boundary between qualitative and quantitative studies of science.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00056> * Harriet Zuckerman, “Is ‘the time ripe’ for quantitative research on misconduct in science?”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00065> Using numbers in decision making * Yong Zhao, Jian Du, & Yishan Wu, “Impact of J.D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China: Implications for today’s quantitative studies of science.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00064> * Diana Hicks & Kimberly Isett, “Powerful numbers: Exemplary quantitative studies of science that had policy impact.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00060> * Thomas Heinze & Arlette Jappe, “Quantitative science studies should be framed with middle-range theories and concepts from the social sciences.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00059> Perspectives and bridges * Christine L. Borgman, “Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00053> * Mary Frank Fox, “Gender, science, and academic rank: Key issues and approaches.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00057> * Koen Frenken, “Geography of scientific knowledge: A proximity approach.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00058> Future directions * Alberto Cambrosio, Jean-Philippe Cointet, & Alexandre H. Abdo, “Beyond networks: Aligning qualitative and computational science studies.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00055> * Henry Small, “Past as prologue: Approaches to the study of confirmation in science.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00063> * Noortje Marres & Sarah de Rijcke, “From indicators to indicating interdisciplinarity: A participatory mapping methodology for research communities in-the-making.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00062> We are grateful to the Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) - Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology<https://www.tib.eu/en/> for financial support to the special issue. 6

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

Listserv For Scientists August 2020