 Yes? Okay. Thank you, everyone. We will start this webinar. This is the last one of this Open Education Week. Thank you all of you for being here on this webinar. Let me say a few words just to start. We are very proud to participate, of course, in this Open Education Week from Eden. As you know, this webinar this week is also organized by Eden, and this is the last one of the ones that we did during this week. The topic of this webinar is about research evidence-based research and also related with Open Education, of course. Let me start with my personal presentation. My name is Josep Duarte. I'm a professor from Open from UOC, University of Alberta, Catalonia, Open University of Catalonia. And also I am a vice president of research of Eden and executive committee member of Eden. And also with my red, which is here with us, editor-in-chief of International Journal of Educational Technology in High Education. The way that we organize this webinar today is we will start with a short presentation from our presenters. We have four presenters for today. I prefer that the presenters presented by myself. And in the second part, we will have another round with different presentations from each one of them. As you know, because you are probably familiar with this software Adobe Connect, you can participate on the chat, asking questions. And at the end, we will have an open space also to ask these questions to the presenters. I think we can start with the presentations. Paul, the floor is yours. Good morning, everyone from Tempe, Arizona. I'm attending a conference here. So I do apologize for my camera not being on. Maybe it's good because I'm still sleepy, but I'm a research professor in Open and this is learning at UNISA, the University of South Africa. We were established in 1873 and we are fairly large. My current research focus is on the collection, the analysis and the use of student data as evidence. And I would come back to that in order to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning in open and distributed environments. And then my secondary focus is on open and distributed learning, the wide field and mapping ecologies of open. So that's me. Thank you very much for inviting me. Thank you very much, Paul. Now we move to Meread, the floor is yours. Hello. Meread, can you introduce yourself please? Hi, so I'm Meread Nikola Vihil, I am the head of the Ideas Lab and the National Institute for Digital Learning in Dublin City University in Ireland. I suppose my main research focus will be looking at MOOCs and their use and looking at areas of language research and also regard to cultural research. We're also looking at a number of areas to do with sentiment analysis, motivation. We're looking at how we can use the data and the evidence that we are gathering in these MOOCs to inform our learning design. And another area of research with myself and Professor Mark Brown are quite interested in as well as in around institutional research, but also looking at the macro learning environment and how what has been turned as the unbundling and rebundling of higher education and how open is contributing to that. So we have a very dynamic research team in my unit and within the wider National Institute for Digital Learning. So we draw on many of these aspects particularly in regard to open data and new methodologies and how we can not only influence research but also influence policy in this area as well. Thank you very much Meread. Now we move to Andrea. Hello. Welcome everyone. My name is Andrea Saltelli. I'm a professor at the Center for the Study of Science and Humanities at the University in Bergen in Norway which is a group of kind of very much applied philosophers and philosophers of science. But I'm also visiting fellow at Open Evident Research here in Barcelona where I live. My most recent paper are on sensitivity analysis which is my historical discipline, something related to mathematics and mathematical modeling, but also sensitivity other thing which is more to do with epistemology. And I've worked on a number of different topics. More recently I've been doing a number of articles on the crisis of science and of science quality control system. This effect and in relation to evidence-based policy I've been working to develop a syllabus on numbers for policy which wants exactly to address some of the shortcoming and pathologies of evidence-based policy. It is intended today kind of epistemological therapy for the responsible use of quantification. Okay. Thank you very much Andrea. And now Tony, the end is your time. Hello. Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I am Tony Perez Navarro. I work at Universitat Uberta de Catalunya. Now I am the Deputy Director of Research at the University but I am also a professor at the Computer Science, Multimedia and Telecommunications Department. I am very proud of being teaching, being professor of physics and geographic information systems. And my research topics related with writing and mainly focus on the communication of mathematics within online environments. And lately related with the use of videos as a teaching tool in mainly in science subjects but mainly in physics which is the subject that I that they give. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you very much Tony. Okay, as you can see we have a very interesting panel today. And here now it's offered the floor to this panel to make some presentations about these ideas that we share with them in order to prepare this webinar. The idea is which is the most relevant research challenge on open education today. Can evidence-based research approach offer a new better perspective for open education research? And what kind of evidence-based research methodologies are more appropriated to research on open education? Of course the presenters can make comments related to other questions or things that they think that could be interesting to share with us today. I think we can follow the same the same order and maybe Paul if you want to start with your presentation. Great. Thank you very much. I just wait for the presentation to load and then I will be able to see what I. Just some general comments. I just thought it may be good to position myself from where I stand in the social sciences and then specifically in the learning sciences. I really think we need to engage firstly with evidence in the social imaginary. What do people expect of evidence? What are our assumptions about evidence? Where does this notion of evidence in education and then an open education comes from? And then we have open in the social imaginaries. We tend to think in binaries of open and versus close. And I really think when we speak about research in the open, we have to engage with the notion of open in the social imaginaries. I speak from the broader context in high education and that is a specific context. And then our beliefs about the practice and impact of educational research. So in this opening slide, I think it that's where I would like to position my my my contribution to this discussion is researching open and evidence in open research. Is positioned in this ecology of evidence in the social imaginary opens the broader context of in high education and then our beliefs. So that's just as introduction my response to the first question. Thanks for this question, Joseph. I had to really think hard about some of them. So, so what are the most relevant research challenges from where I am situated in open education? I think we need to think beyond binary. It's as it's not as simple as open and closed. And I really think we need to explore the ecologies making open or close desirable and when is open not desirable and when it's closed desirable. When is open data and making my research data open when is it desirable and what conditions are some parts of my research data or my findings even not desirable. So I think we need to think beyond making open and close and think about ecologies. What are the who's the stakeholders? What are the power relations in the finding and making open? The second thing is, I think we need to move beyond definitions and declarations. Often in articles on open education and research in open education, we go back to the policies we go back to the definitions, whether it's a Cape Town declaration or whether whatever declaration. So, so my question is, what was left unsaid? Who and what is excluded in our current definitions and in our current attempts to define open and and who excluded them? Who are the voices that are not heard on what basis? And what are the effects on those material and human that are not included that are affected? I love the work of Manuel Castel that says, not everyone is included, but everyone is affected. So when we, and for me that's a research challenge to engage with, to go beyond our definitions and ask what was left unsaid? Who and what is excluded and by whom and on what basis? What are the effects of these inclusions and exclusions on everyone? The first thing that I think from where I am, the most relevant research challenge in open education is realizing that all evidence are ideological. All evidence, in my view, is preliminary until further notice. All evidence is contested and fragile. So, so from, again, this is very, very personal, but I do think that we need to be very sober about evidence. I'm now at the learning analytics and knowledge conference and, and there's an increasing realization that the evidence presented last year has since been found not to be true anymore or had gaps in it. And I think there's an openness in our claims about evidence to say this is ideological, it's preliminary. We, from what we know, the until further notice, this is the claims we can make. It can be contested and it's increasingly fragile. The second question is, and this is an interesting one, can evidence-based research offer a new and better perspective? And I was wondering what would make it new and better than what? What is evidence-based research as if we, do we find the research that is not evidence-based? So what is new about this and better than what? And then the second point with regard to that is, to what extent can evidence be open and not close off interrogation and critique? And I've already referred to that in the sense of, are we open about our processes, the decisions that led us to accept a certain methodology as appropriate to this question? Will we make our data open? Will we share our findings? Is there something that we will not share or we won't be allowed to share? So to what extent can evidence be open and not close off interrogation and critique? And then the third point in this question is, how is evidence-based research different in open education compared to non-open education? So I first want to question, is there any research that is not evidence-based? Well, even conceptual and theoretical research, there's evidence. So I want to contest and destabilize this question to say, is there evidence-based research that is not evidence-based? Is there any research that is not evidence-based? And then secondly, the evidence in open education, does it really differ from non-open education? So yeah, this question really had me wondering. The third and final question, what kind of evidence-based research methodologies are more appropriate to research on open education? And I was wondering, methodologies depend on a true flow from the research question. So what are the questions? So if we have a whole basket full of methodologies, quantitative as well as qualitative, and I really think all those methodologies can be appropriate depending on what are your questions. The second thing is, what research methodologies are not focused on gathering and reporting on evidence? So when we think about what is appropriate, what methodologies are appropriate, then I would like to say that all methodologies are focused to present evidence, whether theoretical, conceptual, or empirical. And then my last point, and I think I'm within your time limits, Joseph, is how will the evidence be disseminated? Will we do research in open education but published in a closed journal, which I find is ironic, and I will not refer to the journal or the recent journal that published that is not an open journal. It's beyond the firewall, beyond the firewall, but they had a special issue on open education. And I was just thinking, what, really? So how will the evidence in open education be disseminated? So even though we do research in open, we can present the findings in closed environments. And who will have access to the findings? Will we allow, will we make our data sets open? Or will that be beyond firewalls and paywalls? And how will the findings be open and open up for further spaces? We publish our articles and we publish our findings sort of as a fader complete. This is where we are, and there's no space for interrogation. We need to move on to the next publication. So that is my humble contribution. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Paul. Very, very interesting to me. I'm sure for a lot of the attendance to this webinar. Please, if you have any comments or questions, you can continue writing of course in the chat and we try to collect some of them for the last part of the webinar. Okay, now we can move to the next presenter. My red is your turn. I'll just wait for the slides to come up. I think this is your slides. Okay, so what I wanted to talk about, I think Paul has spoken more at the macro level. I wanted to drill down into some of the research that we've been doing to highlight some of the issues that we've done. We found within the literature and also to do with some of the studies that particularly within our in our field and in our particular research area. So we're doing research and we're drawing from a lot of data that we garner and collect from the MOOCs that we have wrong, which are Irish language and cultural MOOCs that we deliver through the future learning platform. So we've quite a number of people and learners who engage in these and we've had a huge amount of, as you'd expect through the MOOCs that we deliver with a huge amount of data points and evidence and etc. And I'll come back to the notion of data versus evidence in a few minutes. But this is basically I just want to give you certain sort of context to the work that we do, and that we're currently looking at. So for me, when I was looking at these, when we look at this and what one of the major criticisms and challenges we would be in this area is really designing well, well-defined and well-filtered research and this comes down to looking at the data and then the particular questions that we have and I'll come back to this again when we talk to methodology. For me, some of the issues in this, we've had to grapple with these as well as looking at the ethical issues. And, you know, Salman has said, you know, this notion of data violence, even though we've put in as like many others who do this type of research, we have all our clearance, ethical clearance. We attempt to at all times to inform the learner that we are collecting these and also to inform them of our results and our findings. I suppose they're particularly aware of our findings when we alert them to a change in our learning design based on something that we have done or learned from what they have done. So one of the issues I suppose for me is that when we look at learners in this sort of space that, you know, it reminded me of that famous marketing saying that, you know, in the 70s that came up was that if you're not paying for the product, you are the product, you know, so our learners aware that the data that they are providing will be used by researchers, but also by commercial entities. And I think sometimes they're not always aware. And you can say I suppose it's like all of us when we get our phone and we try to turn it on and we download something and we see the terms and conditions and 27 pages that follow the terms and conditions like we usually all go. Yes, that's fine. I just want to use whatever product or service that I want to use. For me a complicating factor for a lot of the research that we're doing is the tension between the commercial business model of providers and what we're trying to do with our own research agenda. And this tension as Paul has mentioned also is that our learners are learners now our product and are we looking at them from that point of view. We're also looking at how the platform in itself has shaped and influence and in some way bound at the type of research that we can do. And we've also looked at ways and how we've had to become a lot more rigorous and a lot more having to engage with the platform and explain to them and make them understand as best as they can. Why particular research, why particular research questions demand particular research design, etc. Where they have felt from coming from the point of view that they're coming from that research in this area can be done to very specific ways. For me, a lot of the challenges is that in studies and in the literature, particularly where the empirical literature being reported on that there is a lot of there is a lot of there is an absence of theory. That's one of the things whether it's theory at the start or theory produced based on it or influenced because of the study. And also there is a lack of acknowledgement, I think in many studies of the type of weird learners that we have a lot of these platforms that particularly the commercial platforms where we have Western educated industrial rich and democratic. So I'm trying not to be I'm trying not to be abusive to anybody, but just it's a nice acronym and sometimes we don't say our research is a little bit based on from the representatives of this is a little bit weird. Looking at the new better perspective, I'm sort of in the same vein as Paul on this. I was, I wanted to say, well, in one way I'm on the fence, and it can and it doesn't necessarily have to either. I think for interdisciplinary research, I think, yes, there obviously is particularly benefits that can be derived from this. I know from our own what we have found particularly in language learning is that the some of the some of the research that is done on language learning particularly in open online and digital environments doesn't draw on many of the existing research that have been completed in the main body of the disciplinary literature, whether it's within call, whether it's in applied linguistics. So I think there's definitely some, there's definitely some need for us to realize that in our findings and this is the point with regards to how our findings not only influence open education, but also looking to some of the base disciplines that we are using and we are drawing from from our theoretical standpoint. So I think that was my main point that I want to make in that in relation to this. And finally, and I probably, I think from our point of view, and we are as I'm not claiming that we're better or do it any differently from anybody else. And we do have a particular notion within my research group and the NIDL that we look to in many time for a mixed method methodologies because not only to answer the specific research questions that we want to address, but also because of the over reliance on particular quantitative methodologies because the data is available. And it provides certain, provide certain insights, but I think some of those insights are limited and they limit the type of questions that are being put on and being answered. So I think there's a place for more nuanced questions, but then again more nuanced designs to come out of that with respect to the methodologies. And I think in some recent research that we've done we've adopted a quality of interpretive approach, and we were using this to just to give an example. We had, I think over 25,000 people of data if you wanted to put it like that to interrogate. So to do that in a research team would have taken a huge amount of time but we had tried to adopt a methodology by using particular tools, and then by doing some work with us from a human standpoint to be allowed with that interpretive approach. I think that has been a particular insight that we have found as well has made, and it has made a difference not only in terms of allowing us to ask deeper questions, but also to provide better answers in some way. So for us, I think the methodologies is becoming really, really important and becoming, and it all boils down to this is how our research is designed. Finally, I just want to conclude, I think just to come back to one of the comments that came up and for me, I think in this whole element of it, I think we have to stand away from snapshot accounts if at all possible. I think, and this is where we come back into and whether my understanding of process is different from others. But for me, where we have process and longitudinal research, I think that can add a lot more and because of the types of data that come our way. I think it provides us with a unique and rich opportunity to incorporate longitudinal design and to avoid snapshot account, where we could particularly just focus on very limited areas. So I'm going to hand over now. I think I've said enough and I'm going to hand on to the next presenter, but I'd be very interested in your thoughts and respect to these. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I think there is a different comments, very interesting ones on the chat too, about your comments. This interesting last approach about methodologies and thank you very much. And of course, we can use the chat for the questions and to share your comments, etc. We can move to the next presenter. Thank you, Joseph. I will not be showing slides. I'll try to stay on the track of the discussion nevertheless. So I will start straight away with what are today the most relevant research challenges in open education. I would say that I have a strange feeling these days that we are leaving some sort of ancienne regime where in a sense we appear not to be processing important signals of danger which we receive from society, including from the world of education. Open education should be particularly concerned by that, seeing what appears to be the strong, I might say, devastating impact of new media on all what which concerns our life, including education and the way we go about leaving. I have in front of me, which places my slide, I don't know if you can see, this is a recent book by John Lanier on social account and the effect of new media technology. And the second book I've been reading recently, I don't know if you can read it. This is again from the last book from Ubal Arari, again on lessons for the 21st century, which has an interesting chapter, chapter 19 on education. And I'll say a few words about that. Why should all these concern us? Well, because the impact of this new media is in a sense extremely severe in terms of, for instance, our participation to the public life. You all have heard how this media can be used to deter people from civic participation, from political participation. How can they be used to stimulate anger and frustration, and also how these tools, even when they are not explicitly designed to confuse us, actually stalk anger and division among us, only because this is the way the algorithm is designed, the algorithm is designed to keep us glued to the product as long as possible. And as a result, any kind of item which makes us react, possibly in an aggressive way, is used and produced as a result, at least according to people like Lanier and Arari. In the sense it makes us worth human being, so let's capable of maturing, of growing and developing. And all these is a challenge which in open education I think should be taken very, very seriously. What are we teaching to these people? Should we change what we are teaching to young people in light of what is happening? I heard that some people think we should be talking, teaching the critical thinking, the communication, the collaboration, the creativity, the foresee. Arari in his chapter I just mentioned says that all what we need to teach is just mental flexibility and great reserve of emotional stability, because the life of our young will be in the embrace of the gig economy is likely to generate considerable amount of frustration. And I don't need to go very far because even in academy we know we are now witnessing a process of proletarianization of research labor force. Those of you who have followed the recent debate in the UK following Brexit linked to the minimum wage which will jump from 21,000 pounds to 30 pounds because European will no longer be part of the common market, so that we have to show that they earn more. All universities have said no, no, no, we cannot pay that much is a clear evidence sign of already what kind of mechanism we have in act, what is happening, what is already the way our academy work. Then you had a second question which is quite interesting because you say can evidence-based research approach offer a new and better perspective to open education research? Well, I participate to what Paul has said. We have to discuss what we mean by open and what we mean by evidence. I have recently published a paper entitled what is wrong with evidence-based policy and in the paper I argue that it exists a lot of rhetoric about the use of the word evidence and furthermore the evidence-based policy kind of ideology hide fundamental knowledge asymmetry which if you wish is part of some kind of neoliberal way of approaching the problem of evidence for policies. It's obvious that if we are talking about evidence, those who have more money can pay for more evidence and this is only to evident if you look at some present day controversy even concerning the environment, concerning food, concerning a number of other concerning new technology. There is really a fundamental power of symmetry in the use of evidence about which we should reflect or we should do something about that by way perhaps of addressing this kind of asymmetry. And then you have also the idea that behind this evidence-based policy approach is always the idea that you can easily linearize the problem you have under study. For instance developing a work working around concept of cost-benefit efficiency and so on and the like, upholding at the same time some idea that the technique which you use is neutral, not the neutrality of the technique which is totally disingenuous. The technique is never neutral and especially if you adopt techniques of evidence-based policy which resort to strategies of cost-benefit analysis you have made a very clear choice which will of course very well favor again the same kind of ideology which maybe has produced some of the problems which you would wish to address. So I would say we should be quite careful. Evident-based policy most often is policy-based evidence, we all know that, but the issue of power asymmetry is really important. To wrap up I think that again to go to the idea of the Ancier Regime we have this situation where we have young people in front of us and we don't have a clue how will be the labor market a few years from now. Maybe I can now show you one more book and this was maybe some of you have seen it. It is the Second Manchinage of Bjorn Hobson and Meka Fee where they describe. This book is a very honest book because though it is written by technologies it is very clear on the challenges which this new technology are facing and what will happen with jobs. Even Arari in his chapter says change will be the only consistency in all that. So not knowing how we can prepare people to face the new challenges, to face a world dominated by platform capitalism. I believe this will be in a sense the challenge of an activity. And again so to what extent can evidence-based research help all that? Well I would say that then if we agree that we have a challenge, if we agree that we have all these pathologies or dystopia have been mentioning so far, I think that our role and our duty in this kind of situation would be to make those pathologies and to make this dystopia evident and to start a discussion around this topic. Well I think I covered what I wanted to say and thank you for your attention. Thank you very much Andrea for sharing these interesting ideas. I'm sure you can follow the chat and there is a very interesting also comments from Paul and recommendations of books etc and from other people. I think it's very interesting to follow also the chat and see these recommendations. Thank you very much Andrea and now we are moving to the last presenters today to Tony Pérez. Tony the floor is yours. Okay I think that I am on mute. Okay thank you for... It's difficult to be the last presenter because most of the interesting things have already been said. So but I will try to add some new items to the discussion. First of all let me show you the mission and vision of the strategic plan of research at your center. Actually we want to put into the very center of our research the evidence-based research but also what we call translational research. What we say with that is that research has to be applied to the students and to the real situations and this experience has to be generate evidences that have to come back to our research and then create like a cycle of truly relevantation. Then let's answer these questions taking into account that we are working in that perspective. How open is this evidence-based research approach according to your experience? Okay in my personal experience talking about openness and evidence-based research is talking about two different topics. You can make evidence-based research and not making the open and you can make open any kind of research. So for me what is important is how we have been talking during this seminar about this topic a lot. But there's a thing that is important also for me that is that if we are talking about open, open for us has to mean that has to be available to everybody. So when we are making evidence-based research many times it is just in the kingdom of research and it doesn't arrive to the practitioners. It doesn't arrive to the society and to make that research available to everybody. So what I think is that we should have to think in open like an open to everybody and not only talking about the license. Open it and make it understandable and useful for everybody. Maybe we should have to create after that research what I call here practitioner guides of the showing the degree of evidence. If we, it's more or less something attention here is more or less the same that the medicine was lived in the 20th century when the research was performed but most of the practitioners didn't know about it. Can evidence-based research approach offer a new and better perspective to the open education. Here I want to show you two examples of the we have made that they were saying that that can make this at the effects of the research and two calls that we have created to promote this kind of research to show the challenges. Here you see one example that we created a new way to show the materials to the students with what we call new is a different way to show materials but also the different access to the materials. Okay, it was created, it was put in the classroom, but it has been research the research about this intervention what has made the main changes when we have known actually what it was happening. And through research to have this as evidence of which changes we should have to to introduce. Then we see an example of how a research can make us to change an intervention. The second change is a spria that is born for a research based on dropout at online universities at online universities dropout is pretty high at you will see the first semester is 28%. And there was an important research performed by my colleagues are regarding dropout. And through this evidence is some in changes were introduced that you will see, for example, to group some subjects to make some special calendars, but what is important that these changes were born from evidence based research. And these changes changes are having a true impact in the at the you will see dropout. Then we see that research has an impact in the students but also has an economical impact because reduction of dropout of course implies that you have people more years at the University. Also, you are certain from our perspective, we have seen the research that was performed that what I would like also to write your attention is that this time to kind of projects that are projects. That what's tried to do is get from the very beginnings that kind of thing that they put into attention is that you researchers have to perform evidence based research. On the other side, we have to make open evidence race research because of the university rules. So I cannot show examples because they are just starting up next year to show some examples of this. Then what kind of evidence research methodologies are more appropriate to research on open education. Before answer the question about methodologies, I would like to write the tension about data evidence base is based on data. So we have seen in previous presentations that also is important theoretical theoretical approach, the ethics of a data that we have to get data. So what is important is to get data about what the students are doing or what we are looking at is doing. We have, for example, these kind of access to the kind of actions that the students do. But what is important is to the evidence has to be based in data but act into really quality and created data. So the evidence would be as good as good as the data will be. In that sense, it's something that I would like to drive the tension before. Then what will be the right methodology as we have seen from Paul, the research question will define the right methodology. But if I had to choose one, I would choose the group control methodology that would drive as a very powerful and relevant of the results we get. And of course, with a high end, but it's something that many methodologies according to the question can be the right ones. There's something that I would like also to drive the tension is regarding some new techniques that are getting now very common. Like, for example, applying artificial intelligence techniques to research it. We saw a very good presentation in the last event research workshop about this topic. And it's something that we have to be very careful because these methodologies can show us the why but not the why. So we have to take into account what are they doing. More or less, Andrea has already talked about this topic also before. And what are the more relevant challenges. For me, I would like to drive the tension to four topics. First of all, as I said, the gap between researchers and practitioners. Then I propose maybe to create these open guides to practitioners. I would think that it's important to get a standardization of the level of quality of every research, not level of quality of the research, but the quality of the evidence. For example, it's not the same to make a research with control group in several institutions in several different countries with thousands of students. The results will be very strong than a research in a smaller school with fewer students. So how can we say society which is more reliable in a very easy way? For example, I propose these levels of reliability that is more or less the same that we find in pharmacy. To give systematic reviews in education the level they have in medicine. Here, the example of medicine is very good because they have very open databases with a lot of systematic reviews. And you have very information of the evidences of every single treatment. It's something very difficult to find in education. Although we have finding already some databases that try to get this information. And finally, since I propose the group control, maybe we have to normalize the participation in educational research project. For example, vocational 3Ls, the same way we do in medicine, but it is very well established what should have to be done. So it is my humble approach to this. And I would like to finish with this sentence that evidence-based make up to move slower but with very well-fundamental steps. So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Tony. Okay, I think we can see all of the presentations very interesting ones. There is a lot of comments on the chat and new ideas, et cetera. Now we have a few minutes if we would like to share more comments. I don't know if the members of the panel would like to add something or to ask to the other members of the panel. Now it's time to do it. Some of you would like to say something. Andrea? Yes, I think that I would suggest that we read what Mirovsky has recently written of open science in relation to the hijacking of the open science process by what he calls platform capitalism. Those who know Mirovsky may say that Mirovsky is obsessed with the neoliberal conspiracy concept, but this is probably true. He's probably obsessed with the neoliberal compact and conspiracy, but he makes the point very indeed very, very well in a very convincing way in the sense that all the elements he's pointing the finger to in his work. Maybe I will give you the reference in a moment going in the very right direction. And if you read these other books, sorry, showing books all the time, but this is the second book from Bjorn Hobson and Meka Fee, written after the Second Machine Age, with the description of what platform capitalism is, it's obvious that platform capitalism does not stop before the door of academia and will, as it is invading open science, I may well suspect is invading open education as well. So if we give some thought to this idea that there is indeed some neoliberal agenda of aggressing, of diminishing, of downsizing public and state-sponsored education system. If this is true, if this exists, then maybe we could read what Mirovsky writes and analyze what we do and see if we are played to the same kind of mechanism. Okay. Any other comments? Because there are two questions, two different questions on the chat. For instance, what theoretical perspective might be relevant for researching open education? I think you mentioned different books and different authors and also put different links to books on the chat. And here, Paul made another question. Are you going to comment this or say something, Paul? Paul, your microphone is mute. I love the work that Andrea was referring to platform capitalism and I just had a thought, our high impact journals and the publishing houses actually become another form of platform capitalism. I know it's sort of transferring a notion from a specific context into another context. But when Andrea was speaking, I was just wondering the same principles of platform capitalism can actually be applied to Thailand, France and also the other publishing houses for that matter. Okay. I don't know if you, the presenters, the members of the panel, have any other comments, the other question? Yes. I would like to say some things that would be a little bit controversial. One of those things is medicine and education. Of course, it is very different, but okay, our vice president, as Maria knows, she is from medicine and she made me to see that they also, they are very, very different in the fundamental, in some aspects, in the way of working. They are made very close onto the other, the way that you have one doctor or one teacher in front of someone to make something and okay, medicine, the output is very clear, you feel better and better is quite clear in medicine, you succeed. And in education, the better is not so clear of when we have seen, you know, the presenter, but of course you make an intervention and after that intervention, you have an effect. So, why I would like to today that relationship between both cases because in medicine, evidence-based research is something that is very established and but 30, 40 years ago, it was not so well established and actually every doctor did as they did, as they thought. And if you have a problem, you went to a doctor and his opinion and his experience was above the evidence-based experience. So, it's something that maybe in education is happening. I remember to be in some education congresses that were many of researchers, mainly in didactics, talking about didactics of physics and mathematics, were worried because no teacher was applying their findings. So, okay, they were making a very good research, they were making a very good, finding very good evidence of how to have to do things, but all those things was just inside their journals. No practitioner of physics or mathematics were applying their results and this is more or less the same situation that we found in medicine some years ago. On the other hand, what we found sometimes in education is that we have seen some comments also about control trials of the mice control groups and everything like that and other things like that. Okay, but in education what we see many times is that someone decides to make a change for a political change and that change is applied in all the country and all the region automatically with no evidence, with no proper test and it's something very dangerous. And for example, none of us would take a medicine with a previous test. For example, probably you will take a medicine with our state that that medicine has been tested in several countries in the world with many different people and it has shown that 80% of the cases it worked. And in education where we are not doing that, we are making the change and if it works okay, if it doesn't work, we fail, but we fail with everybody. Probably I'm talking about the Spanish experience that as user Maria knows we have many changes in education along the years because of several ministries we have. In other countries, probably it is different, but I would like to say the tension is that in that way that education is very important. It is important to have some kind of evidence that we are going to perform a change that change which effect it will have. Thank you very much, Tony. Andrea, you raise your hand. All these things that in a sense you were talking about medicine as part of the general degradation of the trust in expertise which is part of the crisis of induce also to large extent by the new media. We have now situation like on vaccines where people don't take vaccines because they believe in the conspiracy theory whereby new pharma want to hide links between autism and vaccines. Now we know that the new pharma are responsible for many actual conspiracy but we know that this is not one of them so that there is no link between vaccines and autism. But still how do you intervene, especially when you have in front of you a place of young people, how you teach them, how do you disentangle clear conspiracy theory like chemtrial from the one about vaccines which may actually result in them not vaccinating their own children. Evident based medicine, I don't know if you heard, Ioannidis has published a lot about that. There are many concerns that evident based medicine has become finance based medicine because again of this new pharma high level of corruption I can give you a reference maybe about that. So really these things are linked and we cannot relax in this context because we are continuously being challenged in this atmosphere of distrust and competition and conspiracy. Okay, thank you very much Andrea. Miret, would you like to say something or no? Miret, open your microphone if you would like to say something. No? It's just a little delay when you go to change your microphone. It's just delay the little few seconds before it turns on. I think that was one of the main things, this whole conversation about how, I suppose, you know, if you want to classify it as a neoliberal agenda and how finance and how, as I said, the business models of, for us, the commercial platforms are now affecting how the type and how we do our research. And I think we've been, we started a conversation with our provider and our platform about this, and it started from a position of them provide telling us how they thought that we should do it to a point where we have to engage quite a bit with them about how we want what we want to do the objectives, etc. And it was true a very, a long process of very structured dialogue that we came to a position where we were happy with research questions that we wanted to ask were being addressed in the way we wanted them to be. But we were also aware that there were some limitations still in place that we had to engage with as well. And some of those limitations were things well beyond the platform providers that are there from, I suppose, what I call super national organizations such as the European Union, they came in with others. There are other contexts, so I don't think it's just limited to mere financials. So my point is like issues like GDPR become really, really important in a research perspective. So they become the issue because they have consequences both for the preference that also from what we do our research. So I think this question isn't as easy. The, you know, again, because of the multitude of context is bearing down on how we're researching in particular ways and particularly in our own context for doing research. That I think has a significant right, but I don't think it's simply just a single causal effect of multiple contexts that need to be taken into account. And so I think for me, we need to be a little bit more aware of that when we think about it. And also just in response to some of the chat that's come up, I think our claims also have to be contextualized. They also have to be put in some sort of historical context as well. I think that's another thing that I would also say in regards to some other research, even though it may be an empirical nature. I think there's a historical, there's a historical placing of that research. And I think that we need to be more cognizant of that as we review, as we engage, as we write, as we disseminate our research more broadly. Thank you very much, Andrea. I think, I'm sorry, I think now it's time to more or less to finish. To me, it was a very really interesting webinar because there is, to me, there were very interesting comments and points and also during the chat. I have also a personal question, not for instance, yes, I agree with, in particular with Paul when he said it is not a research without evidence, but why in the area of education we insist a lot on evidence? That is maybe because in another way, in another period of time, we did research without evidence. I don't know that this is a very important point to this. And also, to me, it was very interesting some of the comments related to the wide journals, this idea from the vision from particular journals or in particular some publisher companies. Let me say just as an editor, the same like my rate, sometimes it depends also from the editor point of views. And I think editors have a very important role in order to decide and select good papers. And I hope and I think I'm sure that the editors are taking account of different perspectives, right? And for instance, we have examples in the journal that we have here in Eden. It's called Eurote and also the journal that we are leading with my rate, which is an open journal, no IPCs under a platform from Spring, which is something that we achieve because the editors fade for that and decide to maintain the journal open in this sense. Okay, thank you very much for your participation. I would like just to say two things more. One is, of course, you know that this webinar is recorded and will be on our webpage on the Eden webpage. You can see all of the comments and the chat, et cetera, and access again to the participation and the presentations. And let me remain our next meeting, Eden next meeting. It's our annual conference on Bruges Belgium in 16 to 19 on June. I hope to meet you there and we have the opportunity to see each other in presence in Bruges. And let me say also a short mention to another interesting and important meeting in November hosted by Dublin City University. It's the ICD General Conference from three to seven of November. Thank you very much for all of you. Bye bye.