 I'm dancing away in the background here. Good afternoon, morning, good evening, whatever time zone you're joining us from. I'm delighted to welcome Dave from UK and Nick Baker from the University of Windsor in Canada and they're presenting today What is Open Scholarship? A framework for discussion. So without further ado, I'm going to hand over to Dave and Nick and let them get on with their presentation. Thanks Caroline, I appreciate it. That's really great. You want to introduce yourself first, Nick? Sure. Hi everyone, I'm Nick Baker. I'm the Director of the Office of Open Learning here at the University of Windsor in the southernmost tip of Canada. And I'm also at the University of Windsor. We are just south of Detroit for those of you who locate yourself by giant American cities. And I'm a learning specialist at Nick's office and I do strategy type things there. Nick and I have both been members of the open community for, I don't know, 20 or so long time. And this is one of those things that's been, I know on both of our lists, for a lot of that time, which is how do we recognize this kind of opening business and how do we actually have it in such a way that the academy can understand it, right? And it's that conversation that's really important to us. So presentation is being recorded. There is live transcripts just so everybody knows. We'll post the slides. Hello folks in the chat room. Nice to see you from Leicester, Cape Town, Northumberland in the UK. Lovely. We will post the slides if people want them. We're going to do an introduction to open scholarship in terms of different definitions on there. We'll talk about the stuff that we're doing. We'll talk about specifically related to tenure promotion. And then we've got some discussion questions because the thing we're doing right now is by no means finished by any stretch of the imagination. And we're looking for some feedback from you guys. Yeah, it is absolutely a work in progress. So we are trying to model that by working in the open. So just to start things off, we've got a little mentee here guys, I'd like to see we've got some people in the chat room. So I'd love to hear from you for you guys who have, oh, look at that. The mentee link just got popped in the chat room. So go ahead and click on that. Feel free to throw in a word or two or three or five of what opens scholarship means to you. And this will give us a sense of where you guys are from. If you've never used Mentimeter before, you go to menti.com and type in that 8214-3603 number. I like to do it on my phone whenever I'm doing this on a computer. You might want to, you might be more organized than me. You could keep two windows open at the same time. You all go ahead and do it so I feel how much time it would take somebody else to do it. So asking you to sign into the mentee and then go ahead 8214. 36. No paywall or data wall. Okay. Thank you. That's really helpful. Generosity, collaboration, quality and equity, access for sure. How many of these are coming from you, Dave? None yet. Now you know that I posted. It's interesting because when you look at those words, I can imagine them hitting the institution in very, very different ways. You know, when we talk about paywalls, we talk about data walls and we talk about generosity, like those hit the institution in very, very different places. It just goes to show how difficult this conversation is. Open thesis, service. The service thing is really interesting. A piece of research we have from another group that's working on the same thing speaks to this one really, really clearly, I think. I really appreciate you guys engaging. Oh, hi, Clint. Look at that. And so it's really helpful to see the different perspectives and to get a sense of where people are engaging the margins, balanced voices. That's great. That's 10 responses. I'll take that. Thanks, folks. We're going to move forward. Do keep that open because we've got some feedback that we're looking for from you guys later. And if you guys want to keep answering, they'll go in and we'll take a screenshot of this and post it somewhere after the fact. Go ahead, Nick. So part of what we're trying to do here is, as Dave kind of alluded to, we see one of the barriers to pursuing open scholarship and open practices in general where we are, is that it's not valued in the same way in the currency of academia that other forms of scholarship are. And so we think we need to tackle at least some of that. And one way to get at that is through the tenure process that we have here in North America because it's really the currency that most people are most familiar with. What we're seeing, though, is that the research funders are ahead of us on this, that most of the large research bodies now require open scholarship as part of your practice in different ways. We know that many institutions have kind of run ahead with their practice making open scholarship possible, providing the infrastructure for that, providing open repositories and other ways to engage with it. But this whole renewal, promotion tenure process is lagging a long way behind that. And we think that that's a pretty significant barrier to it being adopted in tenure. Back to you, Dave. So there's the concern for the industry for us specifically at the University of Windsor. We work in a department headed up by Nick called the Office of Open Learning. And we are an ancillary faculty. So we have faculty roles, but we're learning specialists. So we live in that middle ground where we kind of straddle. Part of our research, I think it's 20% of our time is meant to be dedicated towards research. But we're literally the Office of Open Learning. So obviously a lot of our research is open scholarship. So for us, we're rewriting our renewal, promotion and tenure criteria right now. And that's what you're seeing. We're going to talk about today. We'll send you a link to our current version of it. Feel free to go ahead and comment on that. But this is us being open about our process to get towards what we call our PT criteria, but tenure promotion, promotion criteria based on open scholarship rather than only traditional scholarship. So we don't count traditional scholarship, but it's about also trying to get our minds around what this open scholarship business is. In a way that we can translate it to our committees who are made up of people who are come from other fields and don't work in the open and don't have the language for it. Sometimes people have been fantastically unwilling. It's just we don't share a language. So it's about establishing that language that when we get into a conversation and say, wow, Nick Baker is a really fantastic open scholar and should be promoted. How do we talk about that? So we have a blog on our unopenlearn.ca site. I should put that link into that has a series of conversations that we've done about open scholarship. We've been doing some podcasts with people having chats and sort of getting a sense of what different people think about this. And that has informed partially the work that we're doing. We're going to talk about here today, as well as some of the other projects that we've seen from around the net. This is our starting piece, starting definition, I guess, is from Valencianos and Kimmins. A lot of you will be familiar with this article. So when we talk about open scholarship, we talk about those things that you guys had on before the word cloud. Definitely open access and open publishing, but also open education, open educational resources, open teaching and network participation. So that's a pretty broad piece, all influenced by the value of openness. So I'll just keep going and I'll turn over to you for the rest of the pieces, Nick. So this is a really great project out there. We're not the only people doing this. We recognize this. There are lots of great communities that the one that people always tell us about is the University of Iowa, the project that's going on there. This one I really like because it's values-based and I love a values-based approach. So I would definitely check these guys out if you're interested in it. Moving away from product-oriented to process-oriented. And I'll show you one of the activities that they use for this. And I think Human Metrics has a really great website and a really great series of approaches that you can use inside your own organization to follow down some of these paths. I mean, when you look at their own values, equity, openness, collegiality, soundness, community, it looks an awful lot like that. We're glad we saw it before, right? They have a lot of tools to help facilitate this work. Here's one example. This is exercise one. It's a small piece of exercise one of one of their approaches that they suggest that you use inside your organization. So breaking down scholarly outputs into intentional processes. So I found the five examples they use for scholarly inputs. Interesting. Building a digital project, curating an exhibit, maybe not always what we think of in organizing a conference, which frankly, I haven't ever thought as a scholarly activity, but it sure is. And then if you look at the questions they ask, it really gets you into the feel of the kind of thing that we're talking about. How many processes go into it? So when you break it down, if you don't just think about it as organizing a conference, but you break it down into the pieces of it, you start seeing deeper into what makes up open scholarship. And then always back to the same question for the human metrics guys, which is, what are the values? What are values that Liam back on? What is the thing that underwrites this? And so their whole model is based in that. Yeah. So there are some models that are around. Some institutions have moved a little way further along in Canada. British Columbia is probably more engaged with this than many of us. You know, even though there's in Ontario where we are, there is a ton of money been thrown at this challenge. We're still a long way philosophically from where some other parts of the world are. So UBC has fairly recently released as a whole series of resources. And one of them is their values of open scholarship. And they have this set of nine values that they've attributed to open scholarship. There's lots of supporting resources around this, so I'd suggest looking at this as well. But I would say that there are a number of these that you'll see embedded in the criteria that we've been developing, some of them not so much. Some of this is more focused on how you take traditional research and make it open, make it openly visible. A lot of ours is more around that kind of, for example, the bottom right corner of the screen, engaging users of the knowledge in the process of knowledge production. So we've been thinking about how we engage communities in this and reducing barriers to people accessing information. Those are things that we value strongly in our unit, probably more so than say openly sharing results of data or openly sharing data sets and things like that. But for other units in science, for example, they'd be more interested in some of that. Next one, Dave. One of the other projects that we've been looking to for some guidance is one that's been going on for a couple of years now, led out of Simon Fraser University over in British Columbia and University of Ottawa here in Ontario. And it's a huge project. Essentially, what they did was take a look at renewable promotion and tenure documents for universities across Canada and the US. It was the first time it had been really done systematically like this. Looked at 129 different universities, over 860 documents. And I've done some document analysis, looked at how those values are described in the documents. Can we get the next one, Dave, please? These are some of the things that they found that no one has explicit incentives or structures to include public scholarship in their, at least at the institutional level, RPT processes right now. The outputs of public scholarship are quite often viewed as service and not research. And they described as such in the few places that do include them in their RPT practices. So I want to kind of let that sit for a bit because it's, it really speaks to the way in which the traditional academia thinks about engaging with the public. And one of the reasons why that's really interesting is if you look at strategic plans, so many of institutional strategic plans are built around this idea that universities should be a public good and that the scholarship that we do, they claim is for the public good and making the world better and so on, except that the processes that they use internally to incentivize that activity disincentivize most faculty from sharing publicly. So that's a significant problem. One of the other interesting things that they found was that in the life sciences have the greatest range of scholarly activities that seem to get recognized in their tenure promotion processes. And the social sciences have the fewest of all math and physics are somewhere close to the social sciences as well. So we've got a lot of work to do and it varies disciplinarily. We're lucky in our unit that we're, what they call a pseudo academic unit where we're made up of academic staff, but we don't have the same pressures of being inside of faculty. So we can kind of make this up to fit our own activity. So we did a session during Open Education Week, got some feedback from people and being good open scholars, we thought we'd come back with our data and show it to you guys. We, this is on the left hand side of that column, you see one of the lists from the document that's actually linked in the chat room of the ways in which we started separating open scholarship. It became really clear in the conversation that the idea of a commitment to publishing in open venues was incorporated in the other one. So one of the steps that we made in our last conversation was cleaning up this and getting us down to five from six, which was really good. So a lot of conversations about scholarship of teaching and learning and where its interaction is with open scholarship. And I think that's certainly one of the things that I'm looking forward to figuring out as we go forward. Is there anything else on that list that stood out to you Nick, the feedback we got? No, I think we had an interesting group of kind of traditional scholars looking at this as well, thinking how does it fit with the work that they do and or not. And so we've received some of that feedback. But I would just kind of remind us of the purpose of what we're doing. There are there are a couple of purposes here. One is that we want to perform this activity to be able to share something that may be a template that's useful for others. But internally, we have to get this through our own processes. So we have to be able to convince people who are sitting on our institutional promotion and tenure panels that this is real academic work. So you'll see you may see some things that may seem more traditional than they're not. So this is actually speaks to the conversation we're hoping to get feedback from you guys from. One of the key conversations we had all the way through was what's the difference between open practice and open scholarship? And is it an important distinction? Is it one we need to, should it be brought into one? Are they very separate things? And you know what? I'm going to skip ahead a whole slide and go right to that feedback because I'm just loosing the time is 1837 here and I want to make sure we have a chance to do it. So then our question here and the feedback we're looking at the part of our our document that we're currently stuck on is this distinction between open practice and open scholarship. So we're back to the mentee and what the thing I would like to hear back from that we'd like to hear back from you guys is what do you think is the difference between open practice and also scholarship? Please feel free to add your name to your comment if you would like to be cited. We're more than happy to acknowledge your participation. So yeah, you know what that that open focus applied research piece it kind of fits into the same question in a sense, right? Jenny, I hear you. Yeah, and there are some particular challenges with conflicting IP ownership in colleges. The college sector here in Canada is certainly in Ontario, I should say, is different to some other parts of the world. In the college owns the IP of the employees normally. And so they don't always have absolute control over how they use their information. The levels of formality. Interesting. That's really interesting. So an open practice is something I do outside of formal structures and open scholarship is something that I would do in a more formal way. Hmm, open practice, teaching and learning out in the open opens scholarship making your data open. But if my data is teaching, I'd love to hear if anyone has ideas how to leverage people's knowledge of open access research. Can we think about this and submit a bit later? You sure can. I'd love to hear if anyone has ideas on how to leverage people's knowledge of open access research for encouraging OERs and open educational practices. I'm not 100% sure I understand the question. I think what Gabby's getting at there is that sometimes open access research might be a gateway into open practices that once you kind of start to share that people can imagine sharing their data in an open repository for example because the funders require them to. But maybe if you can have a conversation about taking them from that very low level step to engaging in some of the practices around open education, open educational practices that we may be leading towards cultural shift. I could have just butchered everything you were thinking Gabby. Are you distinguishing open educational practices and open research practices? You know what might be helpful here because I'm seeing people coming at this from different perspectives, which is really, really useful because these are exactly the kinds of questions that we're going to get at the tenure and promotion table, right? So these are really, really great, especially when they're coming in for different places. Hi Sarah. Okay. So let me let me give you an example of where this intersection between open practice and open scholarship comes out. All right. So let's talk about and this really got people riled up. This won't get Alec Kuro super riled up when we did the interview with him. So if you listen to the interview on open scholarship with Alec Kuro, you'll hear him get riled up about this. If you're doing open peer review, okay, so any kind of peer review, but particularly open peer review, a normal peer review process, you go out the blind peer review, you never know who reviewed your stuff review or two comes back and hates it one and three like it and your paper gets in. In an open peer review model, you sometimes meet the people doing the peer review, you have a discussion and occasionally the people doing peer review end up being coming part of your publication as authors. So instead of having this weird off, I say weird, obviously I'm biased. Maybe that's a safe thing here at the open education conference, but instead of this weird sort of divide in scholarship, which is not very partnering and not very together, we get together. I give you my honest feedback about your work. And hopefully at the end of it, like Nick said, if we're all invested in the public good, then at the end of it, the work is better. And the public is served by a better piece of research that goes through because we've collaborated rather than being these sort of weird opponents. But then the question becomes, and I mean, I can see that as scholarship and people will not normally disagree with open peer review as a scholarly act, because I'm still involved in the formal process and somebody mentioned formalism. But what about the comments I just give somebody on their work? So let's say that you guys are right now impacting our work is what you're doing right now with scholarly act. You are open peer reviewing our piece of academic work. That's what you're doing. And I appreciate you for the work you're doing because it's helpful. But should you be able to count it as a scholarly act? Is it open scholarship? You're doing it in public, your names are attached to it, we're engaging back and forth. Yeah, just going back to Stacy's earlier comment too about, you know, there are multiple and I guess building on robbs that there are multiple ways into this and we're trying to even within our own team, there is at least some contention what other practices that we should be engaging in and codifying them in a set of criteria like this scares lots of people because suddenly you're accountable for them. But yeah, and it could go in multiple directions. We worked with a faculty member this year who had no interest in sharing things openly but needed access to a whole bunch of data and guess what it was a whole bunch of open data sets that they could use. And that was a way into a conversation with them that led to them then producing some other fantastic open resources. Yeah, that's the ACRL frame. Somebody had mentioned that in the chat earlier. I'll definitely check that out. If we could, you know, if you could post another comment and put the link in there that I'm sure we can find it for the Google search. But I appreciate that. I think a peer is important in this context as well. It's my experience. Your feelings are making me appear. Good one, Jenny. And that's, you know, the formalized sort of traditional processes do clean that up a little bit, right? Because there's somebody, though, like if you work with hybrid pedagogy, for instance, which is an open journal that uses open peer review, the editor chooses the open peer reviewer, like it's not a random person who comes in. Because I've certainly had people review my stuff that did not understand what they were reviewing. I know maybe an easier thing for me to say. I have definitely been sent stuff. I got one the other day on some kind of architectural piece that had the word rhizome in it, which is why it got sent to me, but it was about architecture. And I was like, yeah, no, you're gonna have to take this back. I don't know what that means. Do practices have a context? Open practice and teaching and learning? This has been, this is a really fruitful discussion, guys. I really appreciate this, the thinking you guys are doing. Much about context, much about that makes sense. I think the context does definitely matter. And that's partially why this open scholarship piece is so important. We are creating contexts, language context within which what has traditionally been seen as service or practice can get counted as scholarship. Because to me, a lot of the conversations you guys are having here is about the making of knowledge. And I agree with you that to some degree for scholarship to have meaning, something about that has to be attached to it. But knowledge making is not something that just happens whenever we chop down a tree, smash it up and put ink on it anymore. Right. Knowledge gets made right now. And this gets counted as a scholarly act for me because there is a conference and I applied and I paid money, so it counts. But it doesn't count for you in this conversation. And I think it should. So it's just one instance of it. But to me, it's one of those places where the idea of open scholarship becomes really interesting. And then the challenge we face on top of that is where do we go? What kind of evidence do we suggest that, again, our tenure committee is going to understand as something that's scholarly? So Helen, just to pick up that question, I see Caroline staring at us. Do we have a couple more minutes? Caroline, are we done? We've got time for one more question. Okay. So I'm going to adjust Caroline's concern. Service in the Canadian context, all faculty members are responsible for teaching, service and research. 33%, 33%, 33%. I think the other 1% is beer. But I'm not sure. Don't write me down on that. But it's that service is a part of it. And that's like going to committees and those kinds of things. And so a lot of the scholarships, what we think of as open scholarship gets thrown in the service bucket, doesn't count get counted as knowledge making. Last thoughts, Nick? Yeah, I think this has been super helpful. These are the same kind of questions that we have that we're trying to really wrap our heads around in a way that makes sense to both our internal community and to others. And we want to share this. We want to continue to see it. You'll see comments that are in the document that we shared with you as well that is our criteria as they look like now. If you want to add comments there, that would be really helpful as well or suggestions and move things around. That's what we're looking for. So really appreciate it. Thank you so much, everyone. Yeah, thank you both so much for that really interesting presentation and the discussion that followed. I think you'll find a lot of people will be looking to continue that either through Twitter or on the Discord channel. And thank you to everyone that's attended for your contributions as well. That's been a really lively discussion. So all that's left for me to do is to say thank you so much to Dave and Nick for that presentation and to all of you for joining us and we'll see you at the next session. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks.