 Okay, great. So I'm Karen Kangellosi and I wear many hats but I'm being sponsored by the Rios Institute that for which I'm a fellow which stands for the Institute for Racially Just Inclusive and Open STEM Education and I want to talk to you today about open science and many of you probably already know what open science is It's about sharing all the stages of the scientific research practice openly from your hypothesis formation through open putting your methods out there putting your data out there Publishing openly having open peer review and UNESCO has a little bit of a deeper analysis You probably can't read all of this but basically if you were to look closely they're talking about how open scientific knowledge is also connected to the need for scientific infrastructure Interaction with society more broadly and connection with other ways of knowing including indigenous knowledge And they talk about how open science is not about making sure is about making sure not only That scientific knowledge is accessible, but also that the production of that knowledge itself is inclusive Equitable and sustainable that that's the ideal So why do science openly often? You'll see a lot of things that are cited for why to have your science open and out there and again in this community You probably don't need a lot of convincing but Making scientific practice more effective by promoting interdisciplinarity Collaboration work across borders including physical borders increasing the range and extent of our knowledge Amplifying our collective intelligence, and I love this one increasing our cognitive diversity and that there can be a greater chance of breakthroughs Openness can be the sunlight that helps identify unethical behavior and questionable research practices and address the reproducibility crisis in research People often cite societal benefits more broadly that just the public has access to knowledge We can move science away from being dominated by commercial interests that we can increase public trust of science and scientists And so the question is you know if all of this great stuff is true about open science movement And the open science movement is not new. It's been around for decades. In fact Why is there the lack of the adoption of open science more broadly? Why is the majority of scientific practice in the world as it's conducted today still closed and Do and mostly directed towards private interest and there's a lot of different reasons for this Some people cite the lack of incentives for promotion and tenure We're just talking about that in the last few talks right a pressure for publication Quantity like you have to have a lot of publications to be recognized There's disinterest in negative results and results that aren't original if you're just going to reproduce the same kind of study Awards for individual superstars not for collaboration. In fact Fear of being scooped. I'm not going to put my idea that out there because you're going to steal it You're going to get the credit instead of me Right, we see where all this is going concerns about standards of research isn't good enough You're not going to follow the IRB process And in the words of no sec as a state like what's good for science Isn't necessarily good for the scientists career and and this is the problem, right? Like what is the system that we are perpetuating and so Along with this open science could actually exacerbate current systemic inequities not address them in spite of the fact that Equity is an often cited reason for why we should do science openly In fact cumulative advantage is a real thing if you're already successful as a scientist You're more likely to get that recognition and reward There can be abuse of women and scholars of color When data is put out there who's going to be more likely to have ideas taken advantage of Vulnerability of sharing data that's not good enough by those that haven't already been well established Open data can be used to invade privacy can take away rights. It can oppress others Open data can jeopardize Davis data sovereignty Vulnerability not just of humans, but of other non-human species of protected species populations and areas by making this Information available publicly it jeopardizes our our non-human relatives and so basically You know, why is there a lack of equity? Well, there's been a real lack of a thoughtful architecture for how these existing inequities in scientific research practice could be addressed in the transition to widespread adoption of open science and a lot of the A lot of the efforts to actually promote open science have almost entirely been aimed at Established scientists right who are the ones that have already been successful who are recognized who know how to play well in this system Who've been trained who've been indoctrinated in this system? And then we say give all that up and do your science openly and in fact it doesn't seem to be working too well because we don't see the widespread adoption and So I'm trying to make the case here is that in order to transform Scientific practice to be not just open but equitable socially just and in service of the public global good If this requires a real cultural shift Right like so what does it take to shift cultures? And so I'm making the case that what we need is a substantial Transformation in our systems of science education for undergraduates So I hope all the community college professors are listening to me because like where does most science education happen in those kinds of classrooms? and so, you know why am I saying we should target undergraduates and In in the words of Hanna who's a study by her and her colleagues that I'm gonna show to you in a minute Students who are our future scientists right not the ones already indoctrinated Have long been catalysts of social and political change right and so we need to think about how we make our classrooms Places where we can ignite our students to be those catalysts of social and political change and so Hannah and her colleagues actually When I went out there and said who's doing open science in undergraduate classrooms the only two real published studies I could find were both from Canadian institutions And they may be out there at other places in the world, but I couldn't find them and this this particular Excuse me this particular study, which is about fully implementing open science In terms of practice and values and how to do open science They they even followed this up by Surveying students at the end and say say how likely are you to do open science if you could? How much would you like to be able to do it and like 98% or more of all students in the two different studies said yeah We would love to be able to do open science, so I think you know being able to influence students is an important thing One of the things I also want to make a case for is that we need to connect our programs of open science with other movements in science education reform in particular about Decolonizing science education and also the transformation of science education to be directed towards sustainable development So William Kyle who wrote this study along with others have made the case that we have to we have to stop teaching Science in the standardized way that we do right now right like using grades and using standards and using this Universalism and there's only one way to learn and to do science is actually counter to what we need to be doing in the world to address global challenges and in fact Kyle makes the argument that our our science classroom should be entirely Directed at solving problems that humanity is facing like all of the time not a side project You know and I'm making the argument not like an open pedagogy side project But the crux of your classroom is about social change and we don't really have time right our planet is literally on fire and so youth are demanding action and Science educators ought to be able to enable learners and communities to transform and reinvent the world They are inheriting so just like Hannah He's making the argument that youth are making the call for change right and so why are we standing in their way? Why do we have the youthful energy and the hopes and dreams of people that want to change the world? Gretta Thurneberg and the like then we get them into college classrooms, and we say no wait a minute cool off Just so that you're not going to do that now you're going to memorize this stuff And so we're basically putting out instead of igniting the fire that we need our science students to be able to have and so again connecting with a Decolonizing scientific education nothing is going to change until we really think differently about why we're doing science You know and they're and they're talking about science education to actually combat The science for domination right and they write we argue that mainstream science education is Contaminated by neoliberal values and functions in the service of political domination and Exploitation and that a neoliberal and exploitative science education does not contribute to the building of a sustainable and just world And so you know I made this slide before I heard today's talk But it's like it's about braiding right like how do we bring together open science education? together with science education that's directed at sustainable development and social transformation again primarily almost entirely and Interbraid that with the decolonizing science education movement like this is what we need to do when we're thinking about How do we prepare our next generation of scientists? What is it that these scientists are going to do and so What I'm suggesting in the in the open education conference here is that open pedagogy can be that catalyst for Transforming science education Right how we can bring all of these ideas together we talk about these things all of the time in the open science I mean in the open education world. Why aren't we bringing open education and open science together more and therefore we can transform scientific practice and therefore we can actually Address these global problems that that we are facing as a society And so I'm just gonna give you a few examples because it's a lot of different ways of thinking about what open pedagogy looks like And again, I don't mean let's do a side project in open pedagogy But let's make that philosophy of open pedagogy about what your class is about Which is about letting students make choices of their own design about letting them decide what they think is important About them learning what they need to learn and allow them to actually Solve the problems that we all need to have solved because again We don't really have a lot of time and so domain of one's own is one place where we might be able to see this right? empowering learners to Interpret and speak and share from their own perspectives right especially marginalized learners like exhibiting that epistemic stance that Hodgkin Williams had talked about Um Wikipedia is an often cited tool of open pedagogy and I just wanted to point out like this example of an organization called whose Knowledge org and you should look them up because they're a global campaign to center the knowledge of marginalized communities And one of the tools that they're using is Wikipedia and Imagine like going in and looking at what they're putting up on Wikipedia How they're trying to use this the biggest OER in the world right like you can connect your classrooms with Projects that are already happening and connect this to your science education and frankly any other discipline that we're talking about Here's an example of some podcasts that were created by Carlos Gallier students at North Carolina State University where their students are talking about things online They're putting stuff out in podcasts You know this is that once open pedagogy open science and science communication and tools like these can also be connected to Citizen science and I just want to end with a quote from Catherine Diagnosia and Lauren Klein who wrote the book data feminism And teaching data like an intersectional feminist and they ask like what if we imagine teaching data And you can put science you can put human you put anything else in there What if we imagine teaching data as a place to start creating the connected collective caring world that we want to see so Thank you. Happy to answer questions How the heck we can do that and I and I'll say like I'm asking my own question how the heck we're gonna do all this Well, how are we not going to like what else are you gonna do? Are you gonna hold up standards because somebody else and I you know and I get it but Yeah, okay. Yeah, so the question is about like Not all of us are in context where we can just sort of take everything and throw it all out and start over And that sometimes we have to start so we have to add pieces in and you know I've gotten a little bit less patient in my older age of like yeah We've been starting so been adding pieces in and you know a decade or two has gone by and I get it like you can be in A precarious position, but not everybody is you know I want to I want to make a plea to those people that have privilege to leverage it Right like to take the situation that you're in and you know, we talk about accreditation boards We talk about promotion tenure standards and we're like we act as if those things were handed down to us from God Right like who writes promotion and tenure standards who creates accreditation boards? Like all of the humans that are us that are in this system that continue to perpetuate those systems So wherever you are in your career like when you get to the point where you got a little bit of power That's what I'm saying. That's when you need to intervene and stop and say no We're not gonna do this madness anymore because frankly we don't have time Speaking of time. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much